------- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-03 21:12 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > The problem is that we believe we can handle all errno checking/setting via > the expand_errno_check() routine which is not true for overflow/underflow but > only for invalid arguments that result in a NaN. >
Is there underflow/overflow if the value is so small/big that we end up with zero/infinite? I am really confused about that. See for example bug 23572. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29887
