Skip to content

Removed unneded macro#880

Merged
saghul merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
no-nan
Feb 3, 2025
Merged

Removed unneded macro#880
saghul merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
no-nan

Conversation

@saghul
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@saghul saghul commented Feb 3, 2025

No description provided.

@saghul saghul requested a review from bnoordhuis February 3, 2025 09:37
@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Oh, by the way: *unneeded

@saghul saghul merged commit 7e5d085 into master Feb 3, 2025
@saghul saghul deleted the no-nan branch February 3, 2025 09:51
@chqrlie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

chqrlie commented Feb 3, 2025

We originally used JS_FLOAT64_NAN instead of NAN to ensure the NaN values were normaiized even on architectures were NAN does not always expand to a normalized value. This may be necessary for 32-bit NAN boxing on some exotic targets. Defining JS_FLOAT64_NAN appropriately for these targets would solve the problem.

Removing such wrappers increases the adherence on target specific behavior. Trying to keep these to a minimum helps with portability.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I wondered about that. I suspected it was to signal that there's a "canonical" NaN but then we don't normalize NaNs (or not consistently anyway), rendering it moot. It mostly seems like baggage at this point.

@saghul
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

saghul commented Feb 3, 2025

@chqrlie Do you know what those excotic targets are?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

3 participants