Re: [xml] XPath Infinities

[Bjorn Reese <breese mail1 stofanet dk>]

Ray Strode wrote:

> No, it says RedHat 7.0, but good to test on that too,

Actually, the filed bug report does not mention this.

  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52979

Nevermind, I have the information now.

>                                                      although Daniel
> said that it isn't as much of a priority as RedHat.

Of course he does -- ever noticed where he works ;)

I personally regard Digital Unix as higher priority than RedHat on Alpha
as the former is more widespread on that hardware (and part of our
supported platforms at work).

> > If you use GCC on Alpha, then 0/0 will normally result in a core dump.
> Yup, but 0/0.0 doesn't (at least on RedHat 7.0).

Hmmm... since there seem to be a difference between 0/0 and 0/0.0, I
should probably be more careful about my wording. I meant that 0.0/0.0
will result in a core dump on Digital Unix with GCC. As you will notice
from my previously attached test program, I was using

  double SetNaN()
  {
    return 0.0 / 0.0;
  }

> > So, you have to ignore SIGFPE on Alpha using GCC.
> I don't know about Tru64, but on RedHat you don't.

Ok, then my patch is appropriate for Digital Unix, and it does not disturb
the RedHat workaround.

> > > Or are you saying that the bug still existed on OSF?
> > With the native C compiler, yes.
> But the other part of your patch was for the native C compiler, yea?
> (I mean the -ieee stuff).  Or is xpath.diff necessary for the native C
> compiler, too?

Oh, another sentence I didn't finish before I accidentially hit the Send
button. Let me try once more.

The problem still existed (exits?) on Digital Unix. The patch to configure.in
was to deal with the native C compiler. The patch to xpath.c was to deal with
GCC on Digital Unix.