From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19386 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2003 13:23:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19358 invoked by uid 48); 6 Aug 2003 13:23:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030806132319.19357.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "schwab at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030806092140.11829.marksni@delvron.us> References: <20030806092140.11829.marksni@delvron.us> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/11829] nanl problem X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00878.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11829 schwab at suse dot de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2003-08-06 13:23 ------- I cannot find any requirement in the C standard that the argument of nan must be non-NULL. There is not even a requirement that the argument must be a string when non-NULL, but that looks like a defect in the standard.