Re: gcc/libm floating-point bug?

2003-05-29 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 28 May 2003, John Polstra wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 27 May 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > BTW: signal stacks are irrelevent; technically, you are not > > > allowed to do floating point in signal handlers anyway. 8-

Re: gcc/libm floating-point bug?

2003-05-29 Thread John Polstra
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 27 May 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > BTW: signal stacks are irrelevent; technically, you are not > > allowed to do floating point in signal handlers anyway. 8-). > > Not true. Signal handlers can do almost anyt

Re: gcc/libm floating-point bug?

2003-05-29 Thread Bruce Evans
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > BTW: signal stacks are irrelevent; technically, you are not > allowed to do floating point in signal handlers anyway. 8-). Not true. Signal handlers can do almost anything with local variables. The main relevant restrictions on them is that they must