------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 10:08
-------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Don't worry, I do. :-) It comes from the linker, trigged by the
> source code for fedisableexcept, using machinery that's set up
> by to warn for functions that shouldn't be used, like in this
> case, where it's not (can't be) implemented as the warning says.
OK, I see. I was only stating that glibc specifies that the
feenableexcept/fedisableexcept should be available, even if they actually can't
do anything (and in that case, calling them with argument 0 is fine). That's
why I wasn't expecting this issue, and still think the warning not conforming
to the documented behaviour.
> You seem to think they are defined? They're not, except for a single:
> #define FE_ALL_EXCEPT 0
No, that's what I was thinking should happen. That is OK (and the fpu-glibc.h
code should indeed work fine, that is do nothing).
> if (FE_ALL_EXCEPT != 0)
> fedisableexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT);
OK, I guess if it removes that warning it's OK. It shouldn't break anything.
I'll do it when I have some time.
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2005-11-07 23:24:28 |2005-11-09 10:08:53
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24342
