This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> X-Original-To: geoffk@foam.wonderslug.com > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:52:59 -0500 > Cc: libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com > From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2003 12:58:15.0796 (UTC) FILETIME=[1DD44340:01C3B99D] > > > On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Geoff Keating wrote: > > > Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> writes: > > > >> Hi folks! > >> > >> Is there a reason why fegetexceptflag() > >> (sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/fgetexcptflg.c) does not ignore exceptions not in > >> `excepts'? We're completely disregarding the `excepts' argument. > > > > Why should it? It would just waste CPU time. > > Cuz the other ports do it? For some reason I thought fegetexceptflag() > had to only return the exceptions turned on in `excepts'. It has to return at least the exceptions in 'excepts', but it doesn't hurt if it returns more. The user is required to pass a mask to fesetexceptflag() which is at least as restrictive as the one passed to fegetexceptflag(). -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |