This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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: Report bugs for variations in error handling in math functions?


On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> Currently, I'm revising all of the math pages in man-pages, and in the
>> process testing the error handling (glibc 2.8) for each function.
>>
>> I find the following:
>>
>> a) on error, many (probably a majority of) functions set errno AND
>> raise an exception (fetestexcept()).
>> b) on error, a very few functions DO set errno but DON"T raise an
>> exception (fetestexcept()).
>> c) on error, a few functions DON'T set errno but DO raise an exception
>> (fetestexcept()).
>> d) on error, a very few functions pursue a mixture of all of the
>> above, depending on the error.
>>
>> A math_error(7) page that I recently wrote (see
>> http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man7/math_error.7.html
>> ) currently implies that all functions should do a).  Clearly I'll
>> need to amend that.
>>
>> But the main question is, should I raise glibc bugs for the functions
>> in cases b), c), and d)?
>
> I've run third-party C conformance tests on glibc that have shown similar
> issues.

By the way, Joseph, which particular conformance test suite(s) were
you using?  Are these freely available test suite(s)?


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