This patch fixes the oversight.

Tested on x86-64 Linux.

Pushed.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 12:05 AM Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Sigh, one more thing.
>
> There are further possibilities for a NAN result, even if the operands
> are !NAN and the result from frange_arithmetic is free of NANs.
> Adding different signed infinities.
>
> For example, [-INF,+INF] + [-INF,+INF] has the possibility of adding
> -INF and +INF, which is a NAN.  Since we end up calling frange
> arithmetic on the lower bounds and then on the upper bounds, we miss
> this, and mistakenly think we're free of NANs.
>
> I have a patch in testing, but FYI, in case anyone notices this before
> I get around to it tomorrow.
>
> Aldy
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 3:11 PM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 03:06:53PM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > +// If either operand is a NAN, set R to the combination of both NANs
> > > +// signwise and return TRUE.
> >
> > This comment doesn't describe what it does now.
> > If either operand is a NAN, set R to NAN with unspecified sign bit and return
> > TRUE.
> > ?
> >
> > Other than this LGTM.
> >
> >         Jakub
> >