[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
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs address@hidden
private address@hidden
http://www.suse.de/~aj