This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: fegetexceptflag() question for ppc
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: aldyh at redhat dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:21:32 -0800
- Subject: Re: fegetexceptflag() question for ppc
- References: <9FA4CFE0-258F-11D8-AABA-000393750C1E@redhat.com>
> 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>