| To: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: FPU Control Word: Initial Value looks wrong |
| From: | Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> |
| Date: | 05 Jul 2000 17:39:55 +0200 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | Ralf Baechle's message of "Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:13:18 +0200" |
| Mail-copies-to: | never |
| References: | <u8sntrm88t.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de> <20000704003232.A2112@bacchus.dhis.org> <u8g0pqjfaf.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de> <20000705031318.A7627@bacchus.dhis.org> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Capitol Reef) |
>>>>> Ralf Baechle writes: Ralf> Looking at the fcr31 bug I found some other bug which probably isn't causing Ralf> what you observe but is a bug anyway - fpu_control_t was a 16-bit type Ralf> but should be a 32-bit type. Patch below. Thanks, I've commited it. Ralf> Is _FPU_IEEE used at all and is it's definition right? It's nowhere used - but each architecture has it. The value looks fine. Ralf> I asked more people to run your test program. The result is that glibc Ralf> 2.0.6 (both shared and static tried) and 2.2 print ``0 0'' while glibc Ralf> 2.0.7 prints a non-zero value. OK, I'll investigate the kernels and glibc I'm running a bit more. Thanks, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | New Linux/MIPS Site Online!, Ian Chilton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: CVS Update@oss.sgi.com: linux, Harald Koerfgen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: FPU Control Word: Initial Value looks wrong, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: CVS Update@oss.sgi.com: linux, Ralf Baechle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |