This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [gfortran,patch] Add option to raise FPE

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: François-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
Cc: gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, patch <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:55:11 -0700
Subject: Re: [gfortran,patch] Add option to raise FPE
References: <19c433eb050819161749f6fb8f@mail.gmail.com> <20050820005447.GA12478@redhat.com> <19c433eb05082106207b23a674@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:20:55PM +0200, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> I'm not very good at understanding where static is needed. Will this
> not mess things up if the function is called more than once?

No.

> Why one bitmask and not 6 arguments? The code seemed pretty readable
> in that way. Plus, it enables us to have more than two states for each
> exception, which might be useful at some point.

Huh?  Like what?  It's not like the hardware has more than "on"
and "off".  AFAICS, this only makes the code larger.

> > Why separate i386/sse code?  You might as well just detect sse
> > at runtime.  There are pleanty of examples of this in the code
> > base already.
> 
> Could you point me to one such occurence? A grep of the GCC codebase
> did not help me much...

config/gcc/crtfastmath.c.



r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [gfortran,patch] Add option to raise FPE
  - From: François-Xavier Coudert

References:
- [gfortran,patch] Add option to raise FPE
  - From: François-Xavier Coudert
- Re: [gfortran,patch] Add option to raise FPE
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [gfortran,patch] Add option to raise FPE
  - From: François-Xavier Coudert

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]