Reduce confusion in scalbnl() family of functions.
The changes unrelated to the bug in r277948 made
the code very difficult to understand to both
coverity and regular humans so take a step back
to something that is much easier to understand
for both and follows better the original code.
CID: 1267992, 1267993, 1267994
Discussed with: kargl
This commit is contained in:
parent
98173b7fa7
commit
73c031c5d4
@ -35,7 +35,9 @@ scalbln (double x, long n)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int in;
|
||||
|
||||
in = (n > INT_MAX) ? INT_MAX : (n < INT_MIN) ? INT_MIN : n;
|
||||
in = (int)n;
|
||||
if (in != n)
|
||||
in = (n > 0) ? INT_MAX: INT_MIN;
|
||||
return (scalbn(x, in));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -44,7 +46,9 @@ scalblnf (float x, long n)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int in;
|
||||
|
||||
in = (n > INT_MAX) ? INT_MAX : (n < INT_MIN) ? INT_MIN : n;
|
||||
in = (int)n;
|
||||
if (in != n)
|
||||
in = (n > 0) ? INT_MAX: INT_MIN;
|
||||
return (scalbnf(x, in));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -53,6 +57,9 @@ scalblnl (long double x, long n)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int in;
|
||||
|
||||
in = (n > INT_MAX) ? INT_MAX : (n < INT_MIN) ? INT_MIN : n;
|
||||
in = (int)n;
|
||||
if (in != n) {
|
||||
in = (n > 0) ? INT_MAX: INT_MIN;
|
||||
}
|
||||
return (scalbnl(x, in));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user