Re^2: Negative zero from a multiplication by a zero?

Yes, but why would $x * 0 result in an underflow? The question stands.

Comment on Re^2: Negative zero from a multiplication by a zero?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Negative zero from a multiplication by a zero? by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Jun 09, 2009 at 18:03 UTC
Because multiplication is sign preserving. The 0 argument might really be something that already underflowed. That is, `$x * $y` where $y is the canonocal representation of zero. $y might have come from another calculation. You generally don't multiply by a literal zero, since you could just leave the code out. UNLESS you wanted the sign. So that's what you got.	[reply] [d/l]