From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200308292059.h7TKxePp028060@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
In-Reply-To: <3F4FBADF.12E0F3F5@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> "from Richard Dawe at
 Aug 29, 2003 09:43:11 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:59:39 +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 Richard Dawe:
> > > 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."

> For some reason this seems to have been taken as a criticism. I didn't mean it
> like that. I was trying to clarify what you meant by suggesting what I thought
> you meant.

For the record, I want to hear when I bungle up my English.


Right,

						MartinS