From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9443 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 18:25:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9431 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 18:25:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 18:25:04 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id E5DA5F2A59; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:25:03 -0400 (EDT) To: dewar@gnat.com, rth@redhat.com Subject: Re: real.c implementation Cc: aph@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-Id: <20021022182503.E5DA5F2A59@nile.gnat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:22:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01363.txt.bz2 > Anyway, if they leave nothing unchanged, they'll get a SIGFPE, > which can be fixed immediately by using -mieee. Yes, but -mieee is a disaster on that platform as I am sure you know (the Berkeley folks regard the Alpha as a useless piece of junk since its fpt performance is frightful -- they start of course from the point of view that anything less than full IEEE compliance is junk :-) I agree it is not too terrible to have the SIGFPE and have to fix it. Though priobably there should be an option (in particular, I would qualify behavior based on whether -mieee is set),.