Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.oz.au (Richard O'keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Not A Number in IEEE Math
Keywords: IEEE floating point
Message-ID: <2889@goanna.oz.au>
Date: 20 Feb 90 07:59:44 GMT
References: <44@newave.UUCP> <1990Feb19.172558.29696@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 55

In article <1990Feb19.172558.29696@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>,
sarathy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Rajiv Sarathy) writes:
> In article <44@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes:
> >Well, while using MetaWare's HIGH-C compiler for the 80386 chip, I
> >have discovered that:
> >			NaN / NaN = 1.0
> >			0.0 * NaN = 0.0.
> >Is this correct behavior?  I think HIGH-C is broken...
> 
> As long as only very, VERY, large numbers (positive or negative) are defined
> to be NaNs (ie. not results of division by zero, and other silly things),
> then the above behaviour makes sense.
> Unfortunately, NaNs encompass other floating-point exceptions as well,
> on some machines.

Rajiv Sarathy is confused.  The IEEE 754 and IEEE 854 specify the
following kinds of values:
NUMBERS
    FINITE NUMBERS
	- minus zero (-0.0)
	- plus zero (+0.0)
	- denormalised numbers (numbers which are so small that the
		exponent field would underflow; the presence of these
		numbers means that an add or subtract of finite numbers
		cannot overflow
	- ordinary normalised numbers
    INFINITIES
	- minus infinity (1/(-0) = -infinity)
	- plus infinity (1/(+0) = +infinity)
NOT-A-NUMBERS
    SIGNALLING NaNs
	- strange-fella-number-you-touch-im-e-cry
    QUIET NaNs
	- propagate quietly

"very VERY large numbers" are mapped to plus or minus infinity.
The infinities are NOT NaNs.  Any machine which maps large numbers
to NaNs is _not_ IEEE conforming.  It is, however, the case that
	Infinity / Infinity = NaN
	Infinity * 0.0 = NaN

Note that (contra Rajiv Sarathy) it does *NOT* make sense for
Infinity/Infinity to yield 1.0, for then one would expect
(3*Infinity)/Infinity to be the same as 3*(Infinity/Infinity).
But the first would be 1.0 and the second 3.0.  A NaN or an exception
is all that makes sense here.

One requirement of the IEEE standards which is _very_ commonly ignored
is the requirement that the default behaviour for strange computations
is to return the appropriate Infinity (instead of signalling Overflow),
denormalised number (instead of signalling Underflow), or NaN (instead
of signalling Divide by zero or Invalid operand).

The IEEE standards are really quite short and not that hard to understand.
(What they are like to _implement_ is someone else's problem, thankfully.)