Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:02:26 -0500 From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) To: Tom Bartol <bartol@salk.edu>, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, mika@sdna2.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: IEEE Floating Point question: Inf and NaN Message-ID: <19980203160226.64289@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980202230500.24947D-100000@dale.salk.edu>; from Tom Bartol on Mon, Feb 02, 1998 at 11:15:56PM -0800 References: <19980202224740.54577@right.PCS> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980202230500.24947D-100000@dale.salk.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 02, 1998 at 11:15:56PM -0800, Tom Bartol wrote: > > Thanks to everyone for the very rapid response to this question. We have > decided to try the fpsetmask call in the math code and see how things work > out. We haven't yet tried the patch to npx.h suggested by Donald Maddox > but I'm wondering if any of you might be able give some more info on what > the pros and cons might be of the fpsetmask solution versus the npx.h > patch. What exactly does __BETTER_BDE_NPXCW__ do compared to a > call to fpsetmask? I looked through the mail archives and haven't come up > with any answers on my own. Well, I'm certainly no expert in this area, but I think the only real difference between using fpsetmask vs. __BETTER_BDE_NPXCW__ would be that the former would only affect the program that called it, while the latter, since it is compiled into the kernel, would make this behavior the default for all programs. If you want to run preexisting code without FBSD-specific patches, I would use __BETTER_BDE_NPXCW__.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980203160226.64289>