Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:23:29 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Message-Id:	<3405-Wed03Sep2003002328+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3F54E076.8030807@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on
	Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:24:54 -0500)
Subject:	Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
References:	<200308292046 DOT h7TKkAEJ012781 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3F4FC482 DOT A71D96A1 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3F4FCD2D DOT 5070204 AT cyberoptics DOT com> <2593-Sat30Aug2003120721+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3F54E076 DOT 8030807 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
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

> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:24:54 -0500
> From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
> 
> If it is indeed the case that the DJGPP startup code masks all the
> FP exceptions, perhaps it would be easier to use the x87 status word
> for these functions.

I feel uneasy with setting bits in the x87 status word (assuming it's
at all possible, which I'm not certain about).  I'd say let the
hardware do its thing as well as it can, and let's mirror its status
in a separate variable.

> In some ways, Annex F makes it easy for the library programmer, since 
> one can often dispense with the argument tests and simply depend on the 
> processor to issue the appropriate exceptions.

Except that feraiseexception requires us to be able to ``generate''
such exceptions.

- Raw text -