Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:14:18 +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: <9003-Wed27Aug2003201417+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3F4A4AED.459EE8BE@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:44:13 +0100)
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
References: <200308251635 DOT h7PGZkg2012070 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3F4A4AED DOT 459EE8BE AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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

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''?