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
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

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

- Raw text -