From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,57d25404e12d2837 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-01 22:21:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to catch NaNs with gnat3.14p Date: 1 Feb 2002 22:21:54 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0202012221.17665dfb@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012630914 23894 127.0.0.1 (2 Feb 2002 06:21:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Feb 2002 06:21:54 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19520 Date: 2002-02-02T06:21:54+00:00 List-Id: "Alexander Boucke" wrote in message news:... > This read similar in the gnat3.14p UG, but in the > features-file included it says > that gnat has now been modified so that all generated > NaNs "will always fail any range check and cause > Constraint_Error to be raised". That's what I was > looking for. And indeed this is true, but your original code had no range checks, since you had only unconstrained floating-point types, so obviously such a program is unaffected by a change in the behavior of range checks!