Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: contradiction about the INFINITY macro
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 07:13:02 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <861r3pbbwh.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <20210930012112$48d9@zira.vinc17.org> <87pmsqizrh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20210930105413$d6e8@zira.vinc17.org> <86wnmoov7c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20211009201151$a68b@zira.vinc17.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d0e89f89b5342345d215a2802f621705"; logging-data="24385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197yWClew27GF4fM/7dt9Rke8Q/Nf853V8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GHKsxpatvC1CBSgc1NLo1xZVds0= sha1:07QV1m/mnPNh7KxthJvcqDW8/9k=
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6371

Vincent Lefevre <vincent-news@vinc17.net> writes:

> In article <86wnmoov7c.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>   Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> What occurs is defined behavior and (for implementations that do
>> not have the needed value for infinity) violates a constraint.
>> A diagnostic must be produced.
>
> If this is defined behavior, where is the result of an overflow
> defined by the standard?  (I can see only 7.12.1p5, but this is
> for math functions;  here, this is a constant that overflows.)

I'm wondering if you have resolved your original uncertainty
about the behavior of INFINITY in an implementation that does
not support infinities?