Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:10:47 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com
Message-Id: <5567-Thu28Aug2003001046+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: <3F4D011A.1080203@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on
	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:06:02 -0500)
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>  <9003-Wed27Aug2003201417+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3F4D011A DOT 1080203 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
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:06:02 -0500
> From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
> 
> To cause the math functions to set SIGFPE, where they previously did 
> not, could break existing code.

Right.

> Question: Has it already been decided that DJGPP will be IEC 60559 
> compliant (that is, comply with Annex F)?

If we interpret ``raising an exception'' as setting a bit in some
status word, I don't think we have a problem with compliance.

Do we have an option to not comply with Annex F and still claim C9x
support?