Filed  GCC bug 39228:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int main()
{
        double a= 10.0;
        double b= 1e+308;
        printf("%d %d %dn", isinf(a*b), __builtin_isinf(a*b), __isinf(a*b));
        return 0;
}

mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ gcc -o test test.c
mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ ./test
0 0 1
mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ gcc -o test test.c -std=c99
mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ ./test
1 0 1
mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ gcc -o test test.c   -mfpmath=sse -march=pentium4
mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ ./test
1 1 1
mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ g++ -o test test.c
mtaylor@drizzle-dev:~$ ./test
1 0 1

Originally I found the simple isinf() case to be different on x86 than x86-64, ppc32 and sparc (32 and 64).

After more research, I found that x86-64 uses the sse …

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>

int main()
{
        double a= 10.0;
        double b= 1e+308;
        printf("%dn",isinf(a * b));
        return 0;
}

Prints 1 on: 64bit intel, 32bit PowerPC, 32bit SPARC, 64bit Sparc. But prints zero on 32bit intel.

Oh, but if you build that with g++ instead of gcc on 32bit Intel, you get 1.