Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:30:13 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#339318: Bug in fesetenv() [LIBC6.1]
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 2005 13:50:55 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 15 05:50:55 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from post.rzg.mpg.de ([130.183.7.21])
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1Ec1D4-0000To-US
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:50:55 -0800
Received: from mpq3p32.mpq.mpg.de (mpq3p32.mpq.mpg.de [130.183.93.32])
by post.rzg.mpg.de (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA3010604
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:50:51 +0100
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bug in fesetenv() [LIBC6.1]
From: Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:49:57 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: libc6.1
Version: 2.2.5-11.5
Summary: Under some circumstances, invoking fesetenv() results
in a floating point exception being raised.
Description:
I have a piece of code which may result in underflows. I enclose
the code in between
fenv_t env;
feholdexcept(&env);
...
fesetenv(&env);
Now the code in [...] is reading floating point numbers which may
be very small and result in underflow floating point signals.
However, since we have used feholdexcept() the signals should not
be produced. And indeed they are not, until we reach fesetenv()
where the signal is raised.
If you read the manual of LIBC for fesetenv()
The fesetenv function restores the floating point environ-
ment from the object *envp. This object must be known to
be valid, e.g., the result of a call to fegetenv or
feholdexcept or equal to FE_DFL_ENV. This call does not
raise exceptions.
it says no exception should be raised.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 339318-done) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Dec 2005 01:30:14 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 19 17:30:14 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp ([218.44.239.78] helo=webmasters.gr.jp)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1EoWKU-0000gW-Mp
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:30:14 -0800
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by webmasters.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF47DDEB1B;
Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:30:13 +0900 (JST)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:30:13 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#339318: Bug in fesetenv() [LIBC6.1]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.11.30 (Wonderwall) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6
(Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
At Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:08:45 -0500,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll wrote:
> > Package: libc6.1
> > Version: 2.2.5-11.5
>
> That's a very old glibc version. It's likely that we can't help you
> with it. However, could you post a standalone testcase? Then we can
> at least check whether it is fixed in later versions.
I close this bug because there's no responce from the submitter.
Juan, if you still see your bugs in the recent glibc version (ex:
sarge or sid), please reopen this bug or just report it to us. It
seems you run on ia64 or alpha - so it probably the actual bug, but we
need to confirm the recent package has this kind of bugs in first.
Note that it's nice idea to attach a sample code in your bug report
because we hardly find what the problem is.
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
