Yes it did. Except that macro was a ROS-Diff in the first place ;)
On 2015-05-14 11:12, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
Judging by the involved macro, if -0.0 is not < 0,
then the old code
had exactly the same bug.
On 14 May 2015 at 14:50, Thomas Faber <thomas.faber(a)reactos.org> wrote:
> On 2015-05-14 06:00, tkreuzer(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
>>
>> - int sign = (copysignf(1, in) < 0);
>> + int sign = (in < 0);
>
>
>
>> - if (copysignf(1.0f, value) < 0.0f)
>> + if (value < 0.0f)
>> ++idx;
>
>
>
> I believe the behavior would be different here for negative zero:
> copysignf(1.0f, -0.0f) should be < 0.0f
> -0.0f should be == 0.0f
>
> Maybe that's the reason for having these calls?