Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:13:06 +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: <3791-Thu28Aug2003001305+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200308272025.h7RKPrFT003625@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se)
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
References:  <200308272025 DOT h7RKPrFT003625 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

> From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:25:53 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> Perhaps somebody (you?) should ask for clarification on comp.std.c.

A good idea, IMHO.

> > To cause the math functions to set SIGFPE, where they previously did 
> > not, could break existing code.
> 
> Again, how do you _set_ SIGFPE?

Simply pass the invalid argument(s) to the appropriate FP
instructions, and you get SIGFPE for free.

> The math functions shouldn't raise SIGFPE unless something goes wrong.

But C9x sounds like invoking functions with abnormal arguments falls
under that ``something wrong'' definition.