Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:04:58 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: Richard Dawe 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 > > 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.