On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 10:21:39AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2003-09-12 21:43:57 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > This is not a glibc problem. It's not the call to fprintf which is > > faulting. It's the addition of 1.0 to a denormal. > > I know, but I thought that either the subnormals should have been > treated in software by the libc, or the ldexp function should have
That would require a signal handler trapping FP exceptions - quite slow, and defeats the whole purpose of supporting the non-IEEE mode, which is faster. > avoided returning a subnormal in non-IEEE754 mode (this may make > sense, as 1e-1038 seems to be evaluated to 0). I don't think glibc can even tell. From libc/sysdeps/alpha/Makefile: # For now, build everything with full IEEE math support. # TODO: build separate libm and libm-ieee. sysdep-CFLAGS += -mieee i.e. all of libc is built in IEEE mode anyway. > > > I completely disagree. I care about the C standard, and I explicitely > > > say so with the -std=c99 option. Perhaps things like -std=c99 should > > > imply -mieee then, if no change is done in glibc (and __STDC__ > > > shouldn't be defined if no such option is used). > > > > Raise that with the Alpha compiler maintainer, Richard Henderson. > > So, do you think that this bug should be reassigned to the gcc-3.2 > package (since I use gcc 3.2)? I suppose. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
