linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Should send SIGFPE to .*

To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Subject: Re: Should send SIGFPE to .*
From: Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:13:52 +0200
Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <00bf01bfaad1$fc42b460$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com>; from Kevin D. Kissell on Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 04:08:58PM +0200
Organization: rfc822 - pure communication
References: <00bf01bfaad1$fc42b460$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com>
Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 04:08:58PM +0200, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:

> If, having tried that trick, the trap handler gets invoked again,
> things are more serious, and the limited emulator is invoked.

I understood that aftersome loops over the code :)

> if it was actually a problem), and as such the force_sig() should
> use the value returned by compute_return_epc() as the signal

I dont think compute_return_epc returns a signal value.

> number, and not SIGFPE, and the signal should really be
> sent to the process, not just noted as a signal wannabe.

I think this was due to a annoyed user whos process died
always when the fpu instruction got emulated :)

> I was going to make another cleanup pass over traps.c this
> week, so it looks like you've found me another nit to excise.
> (Although we've got the full-blown Algorithmics emulator
> in our source base - coming soon to a repository near you -
> we kept the old stuff around for people wanting to build for
> a minimal footprint).

How much is the full emulator as binary ?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff          flo@rfc822.org                  +49-subject-2-change
"Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and
more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots."


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>