http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59316
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > In any case, c11-atomic-exec-5.c does not test anything relating to enabled > > traps, although the feholdexcept code sequence from the target hook is > > intended to disable traps and the feupdateenv sequence should then restore > > the previous state of which traps were enabled.) > > The question is: does the UPDATE part of the hook really need to cause traps > as > the feupdateenv routine, or could it only set the appropriate bits? Properly it should cause traps if those are enabled (although enabling traps is outside the scope of ISO C, and my guess is that when TS 18661-5 provides C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 alternate exception handling, they will be a lot more complicated than simply enabling / disabling traps, and won't be implemented in GCC / glibc any time soon). The issue of trapping for exact underflow is deliberately ignored (I raised it in <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/13103> for consideration for TS 18661-5).
