From:	<ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200305061759.h46HxXht018427@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: Yet another try on nan in strto{f,d,ld}
In-Reply-To:	<3405-Tue06May2003193807+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> "from Eli Zaretskii
	at May 6, 2003 07:38:08 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 6 May 2003 19:59:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 21:48:01 +0200 (CEST)
> > 
> > A:\>ts3
> > FPU CW: 0x00000340.
> > float tests:
> > Exiting due to signal SIGFPE
> > Floating Point exception at eip=00005e21, x87 status=b1a0
> > eax=000917ac ebx=00092c2b ecx=0000000c edx=00090f40 esi=000918ad edi=00000006
> > ebp=0009171c esp=00091718 program=A:\TS3.EXE
> > cs: sel=00bf  base=00116000  limit=0009ffff
> > ds: sel=00c7  base=00116000  limit=0009ffff
> > es: sel=00c7  base=00116000  limit=0009ffff
> > fs: sel=009f  base=000051d0  limit=0000ffff
> > gs: sel=00d7  base=00000000  limit=0010ffff
> > ss: sel=00c7  base=00116000  limit=0009ffff
> > App stack: [00092dc4..00012dc4]  Exceptn stack: [00012d44..00010e04]
> >  
> > Call frame traceback EIPs:
> >   0x00005e21 __modfl+33, file a:/doprnt.c, line 924
> 
> Any clues why does it say that __modfl+33 is in doprnt.c?  Is that a
> bug in symify/bfdsymify?

Line 924 is the last line of doprnt.c and modfl() wasn't compiled with
debug information.

It's like when only t-strtof.c was compile with debug info. Then the
printf/doprnt stuff was attributed to t-strtof.c.

That's my guess.

Or perhaps you mean it should detect that the file is irrelevant and
shouldn't map to doprnt.c?


Feedback on the other questions another day.


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -