From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200308292046.h7TKkAEJ012781@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
In-Reply-To: <46.3d3d0349.2c810652@aol.com> "from Kbwms@aol.com at Aug 29, 2003
 03:41:06 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:46:10 +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 Kbwms AT aol DOT com:
> > >>>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).
> > 
> 
> In this case, the affected math function sets errno to ERANGE and (possibly) 
> raises an appropriate exception.  In no case should a math function issue 
> SIGFPE.

What signal should it generate if not SIGFPE?

For me raise an exception == generate a signal. Both Eli and you
seems to say that raising an exception is something else than
generating a signal.

Can somebody explain this to me?


Right,

						MartinS