Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 13:36:29 -0800 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> To: Markus Holmberg <saska@acc.umu.se> Cc: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should -mieee-fp equal fpsetmask(0) to avoid SIGFPE on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <2604.947108189@monkeys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 05 Jan 2000 22:02:18 %2B0100. <20000105220218.A77259@fysgr387.sn.umu.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20000105220218.A77259@fysgr387.sn.umu.se>, you wrote: >But I'm not sure I understand the difference between "undefined" and >"unspecified"? (What a cast from double to int should return when the source >doesn't fit into the destination). The C standard talks about "undefined behavior", and when it does, that means that *aynthing* goes. When you get into a undefined behavior situation, it's a lot like being catapulted into the 11th dimension... time may flow sideways, whales may fall from the sky, and your CPU may suddenly revert to 4004 compatibility mode. :-) We're talking about quantum level uncertainty, multiplied by a googleplex. On the other hand, the word "unspecified" is usually use in conjunction with the word "value", as in ``... and unspecified value in the range INT_MIN .. INT_MAX''. This is a far more constrained type of uncertainty. >I'm about to give up on this.. For some (to me) unclear reason there are >no intentions on making FreeBSD behave conforming to IEEE 754... I hope that isn't true. _I_ certainly haven't yet given up hope that someone will do the Right Thing and disable all IEEE traps before entry to main(). >... and it's not clear if the Mozilla code is correct or not. It isn't. 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?2604.947108189>