29 Oct
2008
29 Oct
'08
6:51 p.m.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Gunter Geiger geiger@xdv.org wrote:
Adding this functionality would be trivial, if you want you can add a ticket on track regarding the issue. In the long run the correct solution would be to try to figure out why there are NaN's ... and fix it there.
Günter
My best guess is that NaN's come from underflow, under normal circumstances. I wish there would be an easy way to change this behavior via a compiler flag, but I don't think there is.
It seems to be a more pervasive problem, and it's unreasonable to expect to add NaN handlers in application code. Thank the IEEE standards for this gem.
Chuck