Re: [boost] Re: is_nan

From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-05 07:27:31

Fernando Cacciola <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote in

>> Yes.  It is an incorrect (unfortunately popular)
>> implementation. 
>> 
> Right. We should say that more often. It is incorrect
> however popular. 
> 
> Most compilers provide a non standard extension for this
> purpose. 
> For instance, Borland uses _isnan.
> In general, these extensions are found on <float>.
> The best approach, IMO, is to have a boost::is_nan() with
> compiler specific implementations.

Hi,

We have an is_nan(float) implementation (for quiet NaNs of course) 
that does just that. Right now, it supports most compilers on Win32 but it
should be straight-forward to support others. Right now, it is tested on:

    g++2.95.3 (MinGW)
    g++3.1 (MinGW)
    Borland 5.5.1
    Comeau 4.24 (Win32)
    Microsoft Visual C++ 6
    Microsoft Visual C++ 7
    Microsoft Visual C++ 7.1
    Metrowerks CodeWarrior 7.2

The default implementation assumes IEEE754 floating point. It takes advantage
of the fact that IEEE754 has a well defined binary layout for quiet NaNs. Platform
specific implementations forward the call to the correct platform header when 
available. The code does not rely on the availability of numeric_limits. 

I hope this can be used as the basis of a standardized boost::is_nan utility.
Thoughts?

-- 
Joel de Guzman
joel at boost-consulting.com
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net