Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:13:06 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<3791-Thu28Aug2003001305+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<200308272025.h7RKPrFT003625@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se)
Subject:	Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
References:	<200308272025 DOT h7RKPrFT003625 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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

> From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:25:53 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> Perhaps somebody (you?) should ask for clarification on comp.std.c.

A good idea, IMHO.

> > To cause the math functions to set SIGFPE, where they previously did 
> > not, could break existing code.
> 
> Again, how do you _set_ SIGFPE?

Simply pass the invalid argument(s) to the appropriate FP
instructions, and you get SIGFPE for free.

> The math functions shouldn't raise SIGFPE unless something goes wrong.

But C9x sounds like invoking functions with abnormal arguments falls
under that ``something wrong'' definition.

- Raw text -