This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Report bugs for variations in error handling in math functions?
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk dot manpages at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk dot manpages at googlemail dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, "Andreas Jaeger" <aj at novell dot com>, "Andries Brouwer" <Andries dot Brouwer at cwi dot nl>, linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:48:09 +0200
- Subject: Re: Report bugs for variations in error handling in math functions?
- References: <cfd18e0f0807250314h5c063754gd672c04b2eeef2f6@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0807251535040.7701@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <4891C60A.5000103@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Michael Kerrisk
<mtk.manpages@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I think the correct approach is to consider it a bug if functions do not
>> set errno, or do not raise exceptions - that is, all of (b), (c) and (d) are
>> bugs. This would allow math_errhandling to be MATH_ERRNO|MATH_ERREXCEPT
>> unless translation units are compiled with options preventing this, and make
>> the error handling options available consistent across the math.h functions
>> supported by glibc. To conform with C99, at least one approach (errno or
>> exceptions) must be consistently supported across all the functions, in any
>> case.
>
> I've reported bugs for all of the non-conformances I found.
What I really should have said here is "non-conformances and
deviations from the/my ideal that all errors would be reported both
via errno and exceptions". Anyway, one for the list:
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6814