In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Lawson wrote:
I am running FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE on x86 with gcc 2.95.2 and the
httperf-0.6 port gives a SIGFPE and dumps core when run against a system
that has no web server running. (The default behavior is to measure
localhost when no arguments are specified).
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Martin Cracauer wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Lawson wrote:
I am running FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE on x86 with gcc 2.95.2 and the
httperf-0.6 port gives a SIGFPE and dumps core when run against a system
that has no web server running. (The default behavior is to measure
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:03:45AM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 26), Sheldon Hearn said:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:05:23 MST, Brooks Davis wrote:
Is FreeBSD's behavior correct? Why or why not? You can use the
included code snippet to verify that this occurs.
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:16:51PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:03:45AM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
Why should we treat (1.0/0.0) any differently from (1/0)?
Because Linux has the uncanny ability to both divide by zero and produce
the
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:05:23 MST, Brooks Davis wrote:
Is FreeBSD's behavior correct? Why or why not? You can use the included
code snippet to verify that this occurs.
FreeBSD has traditionaly violated the IEEE FP standard in this regard.
This is fixed in 5.0 and I think in
In the last episode (Apr 26), Sheldon Hearn said:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:05:23 MST, Brooks Davis wrote:
Is FreeBSD's behavior correct? Why or why not? You can use the
included code snippet to verify that this occurs.
FreeBSD has traditionaly violated the IEEE FP standard in this
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:03:45AM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
Why should we treat (1.0/0.0) any differently from (1/0)?
Because Linux has the uncanny ability to both divide by zero and produce
the shittiest coders the world has ever seen.
--
Bill Fumerola - Network Architect
Computer Horizons
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:16:51PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:03:45AM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
Why should we treat (1.0/0.0) any differently from (1/0)?
Because Linux has the uncanny ability to both divide by zero and produce
the shittiest coders the world has
In the last episode (Apr 27), Andrew Reilly said:
Because 0.0 might be the closest approximation to whatever
number you were really trying to divide by that the hardware can
manage. 0 is never an approximation to 1 or -1.
Aaah, but that assumes you're not also trapping on underflow :)
--
I am running FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE on x86 with gcc 2.95.2 and the
httperf-0.6 port gives a SIGFPE and dumps core when run against a system
that has no web server running. (The default behavior is to measure
localhost when no arguments are specified).
It seems this is caused by a divide by zero
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:44:59PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote:
I am running FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE on x86 with gcc 2.95.2 and the
httperf-0.6 port gives a SIGFPE and dumps core when run against a system
that has no web server running. (The default behavior is to measure
localhost when no
OK, having to call fpsetmask(0) is an acceptable workaround. So if I
do:
#ifdef __freebsd___
fpsetmask(0);
#endif
Then this should work on all versions of freebsd?
--david
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:05:23 -0700, Brooks Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Brooks On Mon, Apr 24,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 07:47:01AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
OK, having to call fpsetmask(0) is an acceptable workaround. So if I
do:
#ifdef __freebsd___
fpsetmask(0);
#endif
Then this should work on all versions of freebsd?
#ifdef __FreeBSD__
fpsetmask(0);
#endif
13 matches
Mail list logo
