From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with SMTP id 0d96c20c for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15674 invoked by uid 550); 23 Feb 2020 21:20:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 15656 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2020 21:20:07 -0000 From: Florian Weimer To: Damian McGuckin Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com References: Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:18:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Damian McGuckin's message of "Sun, 23 Feb 2020 18:08:25 +1100 (AEDT)") Message-ID: <87mu99ovdk.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [musl] Min and Max of 2 Floating Point numbers * Damian McGuckin: > Please tell me if I am wrong. > > MUSL relevance: I believe that even in 1.2.0, MUSL's own fmax/fmin libc > routines violate the IEEE 754-2019 standard which came out recently. I don't think the new IEEE 754 version specifies the behavior of the fmax/fmin functions due to the way they implemented this change. Do you have a publicly accessible reference? For ISO C, there is a different proposal here: It preserves the existing behavior of fmax/fmin, as far as I can tell.