Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:37:54 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Message-Id: <7263-Fri29Aug2003133753+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, rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com
In-reply-to: <3F4E83A1.44F9EC13@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:35:13 +0100)
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
References: <200308272025 DOT h7RKPrFT003625 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3F4E1401 DOT 1020602 AT cyberoptics DOT com> <9003-Thu28Aug2003183345+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3F4E83A1 DOT 44F9EC13 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

> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:35:13 +0100
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> Below is what happens on my Redhat Linux 6.2 box. I don't have access to
> Redhat 8, but someone should test with that too, since it has a newer (i.e.:
> more C99-ish?) glibc.

Yes.  Somebody please do that.

> iolanthe:~/src/tmp =] gcc -g -Wall -o t-asin t-asin.c -lm
> iolanthe:~/src/tmp =] ./t-asin 
> nan
> 
> NB: no SIGFPE.

Indeed.

> BTW I think you've got too many negatives above. Should it be:
> 
> "Neither libc.a nor libm.a, as we have them, produce SIGFPE; on the contrary,
> they go to great lengths to avoid that."

What can I say? I'm not a native English speaker.