From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-67129-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25737 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2003 22:50:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25698 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 22:50:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (12.150.115.133)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 22:50:54 -0000
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TMjC130284;
	Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:45:12 -0500
Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15])
	by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TMoon08803;
	Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:50:50 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0TMonw32080;
	Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:50:49 -0800
Received: (from rth@localhost)
	by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0TMon221920;
	Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:50:49 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:54:00 -0000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "gdr@integrable-solutions.net" <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Subject: Re: One more limits question
Message-ID: <20030129225049.GD21841@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
	Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
	"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
	"gdr@integrable-solutions.net" <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
References: <20030129211032.GC21841@redhat.com> <28540000.1043876740@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <28540000.1043876740@warlock.codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01610.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:45:40PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> All right.  I'm thinking I'll just use MODE_HAS_NANS, then.  That
> sounds like it will be more right than what is there now, and
> maybe always right in practice.  Sound OK?

Sure.


r~