From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jun 24 22:34:54 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA09427
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:34:54 -0700
Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA09420
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:34:51 -0700
Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id HAA11035; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 07:36:51 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <199506250536.HAA11035@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Re: Any experience on tcl7.4/tk4.0 ?
To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 07:36:51 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, peter@bonkers.taronga.com, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199506241723.DAA28701@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Jun 25, 95 03:23:16 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 269       
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> The fpmask() call is certainly required.  The only uncertainty is whether
> tcl already has it.  NetBSD doesn't need it since all FPU exceptions are
> masked by default in NetBSD.

It is not in tcl (at least, tcl7.4 coredumps with a FP exception without
it).

	Luigi