From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200308291824.h7TIOcOW000565@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
In-Reply-To: <3F4F9350.5030908@cyberoptics.com> "from Eric Rudd at Aug 29, 2003
 12:54:24 pm"
To: DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:24:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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

According to Eric Rudd:
> ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:
> >>The math functions shouldn't raise SIGFPE unless something goes wrong.
> >  
> >
> 
> By "something goes wrong", do you mean "an unreasonable argument was 
> passed", or do you mean "a bug in the math functions caused a problem"?

I mean an unreasonable argument was passed (if passing arguments that
causes overflow or underflow or ... is unreasonable).

> >>The answer is: as Annex F is normative and we want to comply to C99,
> >>yes. (When we reach that status is a different story.)
> >  
> >
> 
> The material in Annex F needs to be implemented only if __STDC_IEC_559__ 
> is defined.

Yes. I didn't see that.


Right,

						MartinS