From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baldric (baldric.uwo.ca [129.100.10.225]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5890B4840 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:35:22 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:31:24 -0400 From: Carlos O'Donell To: John David Anglin Cc: dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: HPPA FPU Specification? (FE_INEXACT raised by accident) Message-ID: <20031020173124.GD32666@systemhalted> References: <20031020160158.GC32666@systemhalted> <200310201631.h9KGVZ49001423@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200310201631.h9KGVZ49001423@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > > Does having them both at the same time violates the behaviour of > > "feraiseexcept" in the ISO C standard (especially in the case of > > underflow)? If feraiseexcept is called and only an underflow > > requested, but underflow and inexact are enabled, what then? > > Does this help? The standard says > > "Whether the feraiseexcept function additionally raises the inexact > exception whenever it raises the overflow or underflow exceptions is > implementation defined." Ah! I must admit I missed that bit. It does help. It means that I can officially mark our 'fenv' as compliant and wash my hands clean of any worry :) c.