From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Oct  3 11:25:24 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03376
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from consys.com (consys.com [209.60.202.194])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03346;
          Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cssunix.conceptual.com (cssunix.conceptual.com [10.0.2.5])
	by consys.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA03005;
	Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:25:16 -0700 (MST)
Received: from cssunix.conceptual.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cssunix.conceptual.com (8.8.5/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA00695;
	Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:25:16 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199710031825.LAA00695@cssunix.conceptual.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: xlock: caught signal 8 while running galaxy mode. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:02:30 MST."
             <22019.875898150@time.cdrom.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:25:15 -0700
From: "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@consys.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Perhaps this is a faq, though I was unable to tickle it out
of the archives.   What is the difference between "Our" gcc
and the NetBSD, Linux incarnations that requires the default
FreeBSD behaviour?  (A search phrase for the archives would
make me happy :)

I have never been too dogmatic about requiring identical floating
point behavior across platforms but the current rather energetic
arguments over what "Pure" Java floating point must be has 
piqued my interest in the FreeBSD situation.

Russell



}> I tried to convince people that FreeBSD hurts itself here, and the
}> dying screensavers are my primary example how this can hurt users. The
}> solution was to tell the port maintainers to switch FP mode for their
}> ports, which haven't happend for any port, as far as I know.
}> 
}> There are bugs in our gcc that make relying on FP exceptions handled
}> right dangerous and Bruce Evans felt it is better to through the
}> signal, so that people get aware of the problem.
}> 
}> With all respect to Bruce, I'm still conviced that we should switch to
}> default to set exceptional values and not signal the process. Our gcc
}> isn't that much worse than NetBSD's and Linux and those systems
}> obviously didn't get into trouble, at least not my my applications.
}
}You're not alone in this point of view, but even several of us arguing
}for years with Bruce on this issue has not been enough to sway him
}from the point of view that purity exceeds the value of functionality
}here. :-)
}
}					Jordan