Re: [bug-gawk] Overflow to Infinity

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:44:03 -0400
> From: "Andrew J. Schorr" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> > Anyway, if there are nonsensical results, we should try fixing them so
> > that they do make sense.  But mimicking C is not necessarily the way
> > to do it.
> 
> I could be mistaken, but I think that NaN was defined by IEEE 754, not C.  So
> Are we mimicking C or are we attempting to comply more closely with
> the IEEE standard that defined NaN in the first place?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754-1985

C just gives you what the FP instructions produce, and the
instructions were made to match IEEE.

> Do other languages handle NaN differently than C, or does IEEE really
> define this behavior?

I don't know.