Re: Processor-dependent constants
From: Richard Maine (nospam_at_see.signature)
Date: 05/13/04
- Next message: beliavsky_at_aol.com: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Previous message: stu33: "f90 with linux 2.6 kernel"
- In reply to: Gerry Thomas: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Next in thread: Gerry Thomas: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Reply: Gerry Thomas: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Reply: Gene Wagenbreth: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 13 May 2004 11:07:15 -0700
"Gerry Thomas" <gfthomas@sympatico.ca> writes:
> So mask underflow on your processors control word.
>From the original post in the thread, Gus Gassman wrote:
>> trying to convert it (portably)
I leave any deductions about the relationship of these two
quotes as an exercise for the reader.
-- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment. org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
- Next message: beliavsky_at_aol.com: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Previous message: stu33: "f90 with linux 2.6 kernel"
- In reply to: Gerry Thomas: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Next in thread: Gerry Thomas: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Reply: Gerry Thomas: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Reply: Gene Wagenbreth: "Re: Processor-dependent constants"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
