From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200308271748.h7RHmwBi020976@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
In-Reply-To: <9003-Wed27Aug2003201417+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> "from Eli Zaretskii
 at Aug 27, 2003 08:14:18 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:48:58 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> My mail was in disarray for a few days (darn sysadmins!), so I might
> have missed the mainline messages in this thread, but did someone
> express any opinions as to what should our policy be wrt raising
> exceptions per C9x compliance?  In particular, do we really intend to
> change all our math functions to trigger SIGFPE when the standard
> says ``should raise an exceptions''?

I have problems understanding how "raising an exception" can be
setting a bit somewhere and not calling raise().


Right,

						MartinS