Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:39:41 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Implementing C99's roundf(), round(), and roundl() Message-ID: <20031202033941.GA98836@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20031202091936.I8778@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20031129000133.GA30662@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20031129080911.GA25448@VARK.homeunix.com> <20031129163105.GA32651@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20031130213951.GA37082@VARK.homeunix.com> <20031201182219.O4431@gamplex.bde.org> <20031201203512.GA95524@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20031202091936.I8778@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:57:33AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > AFAICT, we can't do the exception handling according to POSIX, because > > we don't have <fenv.h>, feclearexcept(), and fetestexcept() implemented, > > yet. > > RIght, but we have fpgetsticky(), etc. > Can we use fpgetsticky() and friends to implement parts of <fenv.h> or does this cause some (disallowed) namespace pollution? -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031202033941.GA98836>