DBL_MAX

Hi,

I know that to get the maximum floating point value we can use DBL_MAX.
To get the maximum negative value is it permissible (and portable) to
use (-DBL_MAX). If it is not, how does one get the maximum negative
representable value in a portable way?

Thanks,
John

John

John wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know that to get the maximum floating point value we can use DBL_MAX.
> To get the maximum negative value is it permissible (and portable) to
> use (-DBL_MAX). If it is not, how does one get the maximum negative
> representable value in a portable way?

Using -DBL_MAX is permissible and portable.

You can also use '-std::numeric_limits<double>::max', which is a bit
convoluted way of getting essentially the same value, except if you need
to repackage your code in a template (parameterized on the FP type, for
example).

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

Victor Bazarov

On Nov 2, 6:29*am, Victor Bazarov <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:
> John wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I know that to get the maximum floating point value we can use DBL_MAX.
> > *To get the maximum negative value is it permissible (and portable) to
> > use (-DBL_MAX). *If it is not, how does one get the maximum negative
> > representable value in a portable way?
>
> Using -DBL_MAX is permissible and portable.
>
> You can also use '-std::numeric_limits<double>::max', which is a bit
> convoluted way of getting essentially the same value, except if you need
> to repackage your code in a template (parameterized on the FP type, for
> example).
>

Victor, isn't std::numeric_limits<T>::max a function?

e.g.:

std::numeric_limits<double>::max()

red floyd

>
> Using -DBL_MAX is permissible and portable.
>
> You can also use '-std::numeric_limits<double>::max', which is a bit
> convoluted way of getting essentially the same value, except if you need
> to repackage your code in a template (parameterized on the FP type, for
> example).

Thanks Victor.

John

John