Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> The semantics of __*_finite definitely include finite-math-only, as they
> aren't all just disabling the wrappers (e.g. sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/e_log.S
> has __log_finite separate from __ieee754_log).
I only see a few cases where th
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
> > Should we also get the __ieee764_ entries used if the compiler sets
> > __NO_MATH_ERRNO__? That is, if the librari advertises not setting errno
> > via math_errhandling is it still allowed to set/clobber errno anyways?
>
> Th
Richard Biener wrote:
> Should we also get the __ieee764_ entries used if the compiler sets
> __NO_MATH_ERRNO__? That is, if the librari advertises not setting errno
> via math_errhandling is it still allowed to set/clobber errno anyways?
That's a good question! I checked and the math wrappers cu
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > No existing glibc version defines math_errhandling based on
> > __NO_MATH_ERRNO__. I'd expect such a change to come with a glibc patch,
> > and indeed a GCC execution test of the value of math_e
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> No existing glibc version defines math_errhandling based on
> __NO_MATH_ERRNO__. I'd expect such a change to come with a glibc patch,
> and indeed a GCC execution test of the value of math_errhandling to make
> sure the compiler's behavior is
No existing glibc version defines math_errhandling based on
__NO_MATH_ERRNO__. I'd expect such a change to come with a glibc patch,
and indeed a GCC execution test of the value of math_errhandling to make
sure the compiler's behavior isn't contradicting what's declared by the
runtime libraries
