On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > >> Currently, I'm revising all of the math pages in man-pages, and in the >> process testing the error handling (glibc 2.8) for each function. >> >> I find the following: >> >> a) on error, many (probably a majority of) functions set errno AND >> raise an exception (fetestexcept()). >> b) on error, a very few functions DO set errno but DON"T raise an >> exception (fetestexcept()). >> c) on error, a few functions DON'T set errno but DO raise an exception >> (fetestexcept()). >> d) on error, a very few functions pursue a mixture of all of the >> above, depending on the error. >> >> A math_error(7) page that I recently wrote (see >> http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man7/math_error.7.html >> ) currently implies that all functions should do a). Clearly I'll >> need to amend that. >> >> But the main question is, should I raise glibc bugs for the functions >> in cases b), c), and d)? > > I've run third-party C conformance tests on glibc that have shown similar > issues. By the way, Joseph, which particular conformance test suite(s) were you using? Are these freely available test suite(s)? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
