[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What about _FPU_IEEE?

From: Andreas Jaeger
Subject: Re: What about _FPU_IEEE?
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:21:27 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)

"Richard B. Kreckel" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> > When trying to port something to Linux/PA I discovered that fpu_control.h
>> > does not define _FPU_IEEE there.  I guess this is because _FPU_DEFAULT is
>> > just as good there?  I need to set __fpu_control to _FPU_IEEE.  What is 
>> > the suggested strategy on glibc?  Just use _FPU_DEFAULT if _FPU_IEEE is
>> > not defined?  Is this going to give me the expected behaviour on all
>> > architectures?
>> You shouldn't use fpu_control.h at all, use the <fenv.h> functions,
>> those are available for all architectures and most of them are
>> specified by ISO C99,
> Err, I need to manipulate the FPU control register, at least on i386 and
> m68k.  <fenv.h> does not seem to be appropiate.  I would be happy to be
> proven wrong, though...

For what purpose do you need to manipulate it?  <fenv.h> is a hardware
independend way to manipulate it but it might not work exactly in your
situation.  Unfortunatly I don't know enough details about your problem,

 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs address@hidden
   private address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]