Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:04:58 +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-Sat30Aug2003120457+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
In-reply-to: <3F4FC482.A71D96A1@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:24:18 +0100)
Subject: Re: Arithmetic Exceptions in C99
References: <200308292046 DOT h7TKkAEJ012781 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3F4FC482 DOT A71D96A1 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: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:24:18 +0100
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> In the case of the maths "exceptions" I think the
> exception is signalled by setting a bit in some exception register somewhere.
> See section 7.6.1 (FE_* constants like FE_INVALID) and section 7.6.2 of the
> C99 standard.

That's what I'd _like_ us to do, but I'm not 100% sure this
interpretation of the standard is correct.