Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:35:35 +1030 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, Markus Holmberg <saska@acc.umu.se>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> Subject: Re: Should -mieee-fp equal fpsetmask(0) to avoid SIGFPE on FreeB Message-ID: <XFMail.000106113535.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20000105175240.A68089@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05-Jan-00 Dan Nelson wrote: > Aah, but we wouldn't have found the bug if FreeBSD hadn't caught it > I prefer to trap by default. The very few programs that require > IEEE > conformance can call fpsetmask() themselves. Isn't it really a POLA issue? It affects people that port code because if the way FreeBSD works is non standard you have to patch... ie for just about any Linux app which does FPU stuff :) --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.000106113535.doconnor>