From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4245 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: math_errhandling definition Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:50:05 -0500 Message-ID: <20131120205005.GM24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20131117215454.GA9505@duality.lan> <20131117231325.GZ1685@port70.net> <20131118195931.GK24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20131120052715.GA3246@duality.lan> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384980619 14104 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2013 20:50:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:50:19 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4249-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Nov 20 21:50:21 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 1VjEj6-0006ZL-24 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:50:20 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26070 invoked by uid 550); 20 Nov 2013 20:50:18 -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 26062 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2013 20:50:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131120052715.GA3246@duality.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4245 Archived-At: 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