delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |