## Defect Report #418

Previous Defect Report < - > Next Defect Report

**Submitter:** Fred J. Tydeman (USA)

**Submission Date:** 2012-9-13

**Source:** WG14

**Reference Document:**
N1633

**Related:**
N1497

**Version:** 1.1

**Date:** April 2013

**Subject:** Possible defect report: fmod(0.,NaN) and
fmod(NaN,infinity)

First question. When Annex F is in effect, what should the
value of fmod(0.,NaN) be? The two choices are 0. or NaN.

Annex F.10.7.1 The fmod functions has:

- fmod(+/-0, y) returns +/-0 for y not zero.
- fmod(x, y) returns a NaN and raises the ''invalid''
floating-point exception for x infinite or y zero (and
neither is a NaN).

So, that first bullet item says fmod(0.,NaN) is 0.

Elsewhere in that annex (F.10 Mathematics, paragraph 11), we
have:

Functions with a NaN argument return a NaN result and raise no
floating-point exception, except where stated otherwise.

That says that fmod(0.,NaN) is NaN.

One idea is to explicitly add words about a NaN to the first
bullet item in F.10.7.1, such as:

- fmod(+/-0, y) returns +/-0 for y not zero nor NaN.

However, if F.10#11 covers NaN arguments before any other
arguments are considered, then words about NaN could be removed
from the second case in F.10.7.1, such as:

- fmod(x, y) returns a NaN and raises the ''invalid''
floating-point exception for x infinite or y zero.

I believe that takes us back to before N1497 was done.

Second question: what should fmod(NaN,infinity) be? Must it be
the same NaN argument, or may it be any NaN?

Annex F.10.7.1 The fmod functions has:

- fmod(x, +/-infinity) returns x for x not infinite.

Which says fmod(NaN,infinity) must be the same NaN
argument.

But, if F.10#11 covers this NaN argument, then this case is
just some NaN.

It appears that the third bullet should either be left alone
or changed to:

- fmod(x, +/-infinity) returns x for finite x.

Some other functions that discuss NaN arguments in Annex F
are: frexp, ilogb, modf, hypot, pow, fmax, fmin, and fma. Of
those, only hypot, pow, fmax, and fmin have exceptions on NaN in
implies NaN out.

Oct 2012 meeting
**Committee Discussion**

- Given that, unless stated otherwise, if the argument is a NaN, the result is a NaN, and there is no floating point exception.
- The parenthetical comment
**might** be causing confusion, and removing it seems to make it more confusing.
- Adding more explicit wording is possible but seems unnecessary.

**Proposed Committee Response**

The consensus was to do nothing and the author agrees.

Previous Defect Report < - >
Next Defect Report