Re: math_errhandling definition

[Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>]

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