Is it possible to add more traps to arithmetic evaluation?
Repeated by:
$((2 ** 63 / -1))
Actual result:
SIGFPE (not catched)
Initial report is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579622
RR
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:29:28PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
> Is it possible to add more traps to arithmetic evaluation?
> Repeated by:
> $((2 ** 63 / -1))
>
> Actual result:
> SIGFPE (not catched)
>
> Initial report is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579622
Hmm, I don't get that.
On 04/06/2010 01:49 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:29:28PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
Is it possible to add more traps to arithmetic evaluation?
Repeated by:
$((2 ** 63 / -1))
Actual result:
SIGFPE (not catched)
Initial report is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:21:05PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
> >>$((2 ** 63 / -1))
> I can reproduce it in 4.1.2(1)-release and 4.0.23(1)-release on x86_64
> GNU/Linux. I didn't try on bash 3.2.
cyclops:~$ uname -a; echo $BASH_VERSION
OpenBSD cyclops.wooledge.org 4.6 GENERIC.MP#81 amd64
4.0.24(1
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 4.1
Patch-ID: bash41-003
Bug-Reported-by:coy...@wariat.org.pl
Bug-Reference-ID: <4b64a1f8.06e2660a.60af.4...@mx.google.com>
Bug-Reference-URL:
http://lists.gnu.o
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 4.1
Patch-ID: bash41-004
Bug-Reported-by:Crestez Dan Leonard
Bug-Reference-ID: <1265592839.30682.21.ca...@deskbox>
Bug-Reference-URL:
http://lists.gnu.org/archi
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 4.1
Patch-ID: bash41-005
Bug-Reported-by:wer...@suse.de
Bug-Reference-ID: <201002251238.o1pccycg016...@boole.suse.de>
Bug-Reference-URL:
http://lists.gnu.org/arc
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:35:13AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:21:05PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
> > >>$((2 ** 63 / -1))
>
> > I can reproduce it in 4.1.2(1)-release and 4.0.23(1)-release on x86_64
> > GNU/Linux. I didn't try on bash 3.2.
>
> cyclops:~$ uname -a; ech
On 04/06/2010 02:35 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:21:05PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
$((2 ** 63 / -1))
I can reproduce it in 4.1.2(1)-release and 4.0.23(1)-release on x86_64
GNU/Linux. I didn't try on bash 3.2.
cyclops:~$ uname -a; echo $BASH_VERSIO
"Dr. Werner Fink" writes:
> On x86_64 the gdb shows:
>
> Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
> 0x00462cd5 in exp2 () at expr.c:761
> 761 val1 /= val2;
> (gdb) print val1
> $1 = -9223372036854775808
> (gdb) print val2
> $2 = -1
>
> which is strange.
No
On 04/06/2010 03:59 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Dr. Werner Fink" writes:
On x86_64 the gdb shows:
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
0x00462cd5 in exp2 () at expr.c:761
761 val1 /= val2;
(gdb) print val1
$1 = -9223372036854775808
(gdb) pri
Roman Rakus writes:
> But why there is no overflow on 32bit system?
Why do you think so?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
0x00462cd5 in exp2 () at expr.c:761
761 val1 /= val2;
(gdb) print val1
$1 = -9223372036854775808
(gdb) print val2
$2 = -1
which is strange.
Not at all. Overflow invokes undefined behaviour.
But why there is no overflow on 32bit s
On 04/06/2010 05:32 PM, John Reiser wrote:
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
0x00462cd5 in exp2 () at expr.c:761
761 val1 /= val2;
(gdb) print val1
$1 = -9223372036854775808
(gdb) print val2
$2 = -1
which is strange.
Not at all. Overflow invokes undefined behaviour
On 4/6/10 11:56 AM, Roman Rakus wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 05:32 PM, John Reiser wrote:
> Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
> 0x00462cd5 in exp2 () at expr.c:761
> 761 val1 /= val2;
> (gdb) print val1
> $1 = -9223372036854775808
> (gdb) print val2
>>>
15 matches
Mail list logo