On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > But as said, for the libgcc2.c case I'd simply remove all of it. > > I can't read RMS' mind, it is indeed UB, so we can do anything, but I bet > it was just a QoI attempt, when (most of the time) normal single-word > or smaller division for / 0 behaves certain way (SIGFPE with FPE_INTDIV, > or being ignored, or whatever else) that it would be nice if the multi-word > division behaved likewise. > On the platforms where it is SIGFPE with FPE_INTDIV, raising that would > help people figure out what's going on.
Yes, I think the intent is clear. The question is whether we should re-instantiate the clear intent of preserving a literal / 0 as well (for C, without -fnon-call-exceptions). That said, I'm fine with the asms but they are ugly ;) Richard.
