Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:41:59 -0500 From: Eric Rudd Subject: Re: Bug 00314 -- div() still broken In-reply-to: <200304201336.h3KDaL6c020517@speedy.ludd.luth.se> To: Martin Str|mberg Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Message-id: <3EA3F527.8090807@cyberoptics.com> Organization: CyberOptics MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en,pdf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 References: <200304201336 DOT h3KDaL6c020517 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 Precedence: bulk Martin Str|mberg wrote: >: Exiting due to signal SIGFPE >: Division by Zero at eip=00003371, x87 status=0000 >: eax=fffffffd ebx=fffffffd ecx=00000000 edx=ffffffff esi=00000054 >: edi=00000028 >: ebp=0008fb18 esp=0008fb04 program=C:\XFER\DIVTST.EXE >: cs: sel=00f7 base=87608000 limit=0009ffff >: ds: sel=00ff base=87608000 limit=0009ffff >: es: sel=00ff base=87608000 limit=0009ffff >: fs: sel=00d7 base=0001efc0 limit=0000ffff >: gs: sel=010f base=00000000 limit=0010ffff >: ss: sel=00ff base=87608000 limit=0009ffff >: App stack: [0008fb5c..0000fb5c] Exceptn stack: [0000faac..0000db6c] > >: Call frame traceback EIPs: >: 0x00003371 div+33, file div.c >: 0x00001703 main+19, file c:/xfer/divtst.c, line 9 >: 0x00003348 __crt1_startup+176, file crt1.c > I'm still sorting through this at my end, but I suspect that there's something funny going on with compilation with or without -fomit-frame-pointer. I haven't had any trouble with this before, but removing -fomit-frame-pointer when compiling the calling routine eliminated the bomb. >Yes and no. Yes as my test indicates otherwise. No, it looks like the >correction isn't included in 2.03. > >The source in cvs is currently according to your suggestion. But the >one in djlsr203.zip is another (more complicated) one. > Yes, that's the one that existed prior to my initial bug report. >I don't really understand why as the correction was made >"2000/07/08". Anyone? > This is a puzzle to me, too. -Eric