the usual
diff --git a/Lib/dos-8x3/test_mat.py b/Lib/dos-8x3/test_mat.py
index 6d6bc44..1452035 100644
--- a/Lib/dos-8x3/test_mat.py
+++ b/Lib/dos-8x3/test_mat.py
@@ -152,3 +152,34 @@
print 'tanh'
testit('tanh(0)', math.tanh(0), 0)
testit('tanh(1)+tanh(-1)', math.tanh(1)+math.tanh(-1), 0)
+
+print 'exceptions' # oooooh, *this* is a x-platform gamble! good luck
+
+try:
+ x = math.exp(-1000000000)
+except:
+ # mathmodule.c is failing to weed out underflows from libm, or
+ # we've got an fp format with huge dynamic range
+ raise TestFailed("underflowing exp() should not have rasied an exception")
+if x != 0:
+ raise TestFailed("underflowing exp() should have returned 0")
+
+# If this fails, probably using a strict IEEE-754 conforming libm, and x
+# is +Inf afterwards. But Python wants overflows detected by default.
+try:
+ x = math.exp(1000000000)
+except OverflowError:
+ pass
+else:
+ raise TestFailed("overflowing exp() didn't trigger OverflowError")
+
+# If this fails, it could be a puzzle. One odd possibility is that
+# mathmodule.c's CHECK() macro is getting confused while comparing
+# Inf (HUGE_VAL) to a NaN, and artificially setting errno to ERANGE
+# as a result (and so raising OverflowError instead).
+try:
+ x = math.sqrt(-1.0)
+except ValueError:
+ pass
+else:
+ raise TestFailed("sqrt(-1) didn't raise ValueError")