X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date:	18 Nov 2003 07:59:59 +0200
Message-Id:	<uoeva9py8.fsf@elta.co.il>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Kbwms AT aol DOT com
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<ea.41ceb297.2ceaa027@aol.com> (Kbwms@aol.com)
Subject:	Re: math_errhandling [PATCH]
References:	<ea DOT 41ceb297 DOT 2ceaa027 AT aol 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

> From: Kbwms AT aol DOT com
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:05:27 EST
> >
> > In the context of math_errhandling, "exception" means feraiseexcept,
> > fegetexcept, etc. That's why I put exception in quotes.
> >
> > I think you're talking about FP exceptions raised by the processor. Am I
> > correct?
> >
> 
> That's true, but they are exactly the same exceptions nevertheless.
> Moreover, we have always had the ability to *set* floating point exceptions via
> _control87(), *test* them via _status87() and *clear* them via _clear87() or
> _fpreset() (which resets the FPU completely).  The reason we have the functions in
> fenv.h is to satisfy the requirements of C99.

I'm not sure: this seems to be an area where we still didn't finalize
the future library design.

Personally, I don't like very much the idea of fiddling with the x87
status and control bits for implementing the fe* functions.  I think
we should _read_ those bits and put them into the values those
function return, but we should not _write_ the bits.

In other words, feraiseexcept should add bits to some word it
maintains internally, but not in the x87 status word.

- Raw text -