This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vs numeric_limits<integer>::traps
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net (Gabriel Dos Reis)
- Cc: bkoz at redhat dot com (Benjamin Kosnik), libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:14:56 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vs numeric_limits<integer>::traps
>
> Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:
> |
> | > For floating points, trpping is a different, more complicated story.
> | > If is_iecxxx is true, then division by zero would not trap (infinity).
> | > If is_iecxxx is false, we don' know (VAX may trap for 0/0 -- I have to
> | > check).
> | > For most cases (i.e. IEE-754), trapping for floating points have to do
> | > with whether there is a support for signaling NaN.
> |
> | I'm going to punt on the fp types for now, if you feel ambitious in the
> | future, feel free to do something complicated.
>
> the point I was trying to make is that the division by zero for
> floating point is probably not testing anything :-)
Also there is a DR report open about floating point types and the trapping
variable (I forgot the number).
-- Pinski