On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 18:21, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
> I think the least invasive fix, as proposed by Jeroen, is to fail only
> when ERANGE is set *and* the return value is 0.0 or +/-HUGE_VAL.
> Reading relevant specifications, this seems to be a fairly safe
> assumption. That's what the attached patch does.
Oops, now attached the patch too.
Regards,
Marti