On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 05:08 +0000, Khem Raj wrote: >> + BOOST_FPE_ALL = MCW_EM, >> +-#elif defined(BOOST_NO_FENV_H) || defined(BOOST_CLANG) >> ++#elif defined(BOOST_NO_FENV_H) || defined(BOOST_CLANG) \ >> ++ || defined(__ARM_PCS) >> + BOOST_FPE_ALL = 1, > > This looks a bit bogus. Whether or not a particular fesetenv() flag is > available is, or should be, orthogonal to the question of whether you > are using the soft-float or hard-float ABI.
it should be I think it might be true > that some libraries don't implement fesetenv() when using softfp (i.e. > no VFP instructions at all) but that is not necessarily the same thing > as the soft float ABI. does glibc implement it correctly using soft-fp ? my tests failed for glibc thats why I used the VFP detection logic What was the exact situation where you had a > problem with this? using musl. > > Anyway, if what you want to test is the availability of FE_DIVBYZERO, > you can just use "#ifdef FE_DIVBYZERO" since FE_* are required to be > macros. I think that could be a better solution, atleast glibc can keep doing whatever it was doing before. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
