https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29887
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-06 08:58 ---
With overflow we end up with Inf or -Inf, with underflow we end up with 0. (or
even -0.?) - but underflow doesn't seem to require a diagnostic errno setting.
I don't see how this relates to PR23572 though.
--
h
--- 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 re
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-26 13:56 ---
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.
--
http:
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-26 13:38 ---
Hi, Richard.
I don't understand completely what you mean. Is the problem in the builtin
exp() ? Should it check its argument for large numbers?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
