[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:27:15 -0600
From: Bobby Bingham <koorogi@...rogi.info>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: math_errhandling definition
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:59:31PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> [...]
> Yes, nsz summed this up very nicely. Bobby, is there a practical issue
> you're hitting with the lack of math_errhandling on these archs, or
> are you just concerned with conformance from a theoretical standpoint?
No practical issue. I just stumbled across this part of the spec while
trying to determine if some of gcc's output on SH4 was conforming or
not.
Is the differences in the level of conformance on the different
architectures documented anywhere? The "Introduction to musl" page on
the website states that "minimal machine-specific code means less change
of breakage on minority architectures and better success with 'write
once run everywhere' C development". It would probably be worthwhile to
document known exceptions to that when they exist.
--
Bobby Bingham
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
