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
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 specifie
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 produc
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 occur
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 :)
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 wor
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
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 i
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 4.0
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);
#e
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
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 argum
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 er
13 matches
Mail list logo
