From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4243 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bobby Bingham Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: math_errhandling definition Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:27:15 -0600 Message-ID: <20131120052715.GA3246@duality.lan> References: <20131117215454.GA9505@duality.lan> <20131117231325.GZ1685@port70.net> <20131118195931.GK24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384925691 17065 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2013 05:34:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:34:51 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4247-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Nov 20 06:34:57 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vj0RE-0005Fg-Lq for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:34:56 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 13441 invoked by uid 550); 20 Nov 2013 05:34:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 13430 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2013 05:34:54 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131118195931.GK24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Operating-System: Linux duality 3.12.0-gentoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4243 Archived-At: --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline 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 --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSjEgzAAoJEFedFv6RmqC9ITYQAJGue73SA8/kGuklfGiMU3F0 s0ykQ5AfR4f8EHc6axS1ryuzO1ggwEvzGuAyoWC41avq8RMYcUP4nLGHOsLtXv1q c2qVESEcdc5qA6AogJcJd6EGuIuTk0Gk+0wqgww/mgrWroxHUio42tpHO+XVzvy8 mOY0XXXublfPZ/iv3Kgko9YR+dUUQvYhhBy/6QizUSwHYJ1oSImogPU41LU5s8yN LRZt/C+DqcA3UHNVpaQBSkTgNxYzl7Wvm2pkxXPMJdq3/oz2cDjSkGaHf9olO+0J 09O+8zQK+3iXI35HGtL50C1G9ZqFdBeqniYZBHWnYAXY+myP3yRmr4N3TAPfpgon yWEBavomXh3CMbXqWRzURbnMdFX768EXlDbwhocofT4dVW2xO952jQ/DORCEdLkX BqMPWzy16eWvN6heojLKVYipiqTNzxvhhSVuEiLfa3dkl+NZ6ayuxVFexU7W96rE 8/uzJ41wm03hbC2/dRyMWQI0TrwxAfuXiI0syQpUNpiLZqaIYrBrHEdtfpOEogeO XmFNsKP0lBr2igM0ZFSr+t0F1oHP2zR4YEh9oT3JzHZejAR2quy6CKqN/Za6Qjc+ MzaIBhkhcrsLffceWMN30Zt3qxqz5oC00kjGUXMwfOl9mo22KTEkTLgw7eKbPsZF hbN5B2APnCuqf7M5FOsb =PI0X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--