Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:50:05 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: math_errhandling definition On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:27:15PM -0600, Bobby Bingham wrote: > 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. Yes, I agree. That should go in the manual somewhere -- in fact I think it merits a chapter/section on what aspects (at least in the scope of what's visible to a conforming program) of the library vary between supported archs. Rich
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.