From: 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