Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:41:59 -0500
From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Subject: Re: Bug 00314 -- div() still broken
In-reply-to: <200304201336.h3KDaL6c020517@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <3EA3F527.8090807@cyberoptics.com>
Organization: CyberOptics
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
References: <200304201336 DOT h3KDaL6c020517 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Martin Str|mberg wrote:

>: Exiting due to signal SIGFPE
>: Division by Zero at eip=00003371, x87 status=0000
>: eax=fffffffd ebx=fffffffd ecx=00000000 edx=ffffffff esi=00000054 
>: edi=00000028
>: ebp=0008fb18 esp=0008fb04 program=C:\XFER\DIVTST.EXE
>: cs: sel=00f7  base=87608000  limit=0009ffff
>: ds: sel=00ff  base=87608000  limit=0009ffff
>: es: sel=00ff  base=87608000  limit=0009ffff
>: fs: sel=00d7  base=0001efc0  limit=0000ffff
>: gs: sel=010f  base=00000000  limit=0010ffff
>: ss: sel=00ff  base=87608000  limit=0009ffff
>: App stack: [0008fb5c..0000fb5c]  Exceptn stack: [0000faac..0000db6c]
>
>: Call frame traceback EIPs:
>:   0x00003371 div+33, file div.c
>:   0x00001703 main+19, file c:/xfer/divtst.c, line 9
>:   0x00003348 __crt1_startup+176, file crt1.c
>
I'm still sorting through this at my end, but I suspect that there's 
something funny going on with compilation with or without 
-fomit-frame-pointer.  I haven't had any trouble with this before, but 
removing -fomit-frame-pointer when compiling the calling routine 
eliminated the bomb.

>Yes and no. Yes as my test indicates otherwise. No, it looks like the
>correction isn't included in 2.03.
>
>The source in cvs is currently according to your suggestion. But the
>one in djlsr203.zip is another (more complicated) one. 
>
Yes, that's the one that existed prior to my initial bug report.

>I don't really understand why as the correction was made
>"2000/07/08". Anyone?
>
This is a puzzle to me, too.

-Eric