From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca (hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca [132.246.100.193]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9527C4840 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:56:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200310201656.h9KGuAew001566@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: HPPA FPU Specification? (FE_INEXACT raised by accident) To: dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca (John David Anglin) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:56:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "John David Anglin" Cc: carlos@baldric.uwo.ca, dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org In-Reply-To: <200310201631.h9KGVZ49001423@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> from "John David Anglin" at Oct 20, 2003 12:31:34 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > > Does having them both at the same time violates the behaviour of > > "feraiseexcept" in the ISO C standard (especially in the case of > > underflow)? If feraiseexcept is called and only an underflow > > requested, but underflow and inexact are enabled, what then? > > Does this help? The standard says > > "Whether the feraiseexcept function additionally raises the inexact > exception whenever it raises the overflow or underflow exceptions is > implementation defined." Also, in F.7.6.2, "If the argument to the feraiseexcept function in represents IEC 60559 valid coincident exceptions for atomic operations (namely overflow and inexact, or underflow and inexact) then overflow or underflow is raised before inexact." Dave -- J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)