[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RESUME] fpu emulator

To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
Subject: Re: [RESUME] fpu emulator
From: Florian Lohoff <>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:33:39 +0100
In-reply-to: <005d01c091c4$69940620$0deca8c0@Ulysses>; from on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:43:30PM +0100
Organization: rfc822 - pure communication
References: <> <005d01c091c4$69940620$0deca8c0@Ulysses>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:43:30PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > Hi,
> > just to get it right - As i thought the FPU emulator is not really
> > optional - It is even required for fpu-enabled devices which means
> > we should clean the code in that way that if the user decides to 
> > compile in the fpu emulator into the kernel we do an autodetection 
> > upfront and change some of the entry/exit/lazy_fpu stuff.
> > If the user decides not to compile in the FPU Emulator he is on his
> > own and we ignore the whole FPU stuff and simply send SIGILL/SIGFPE
> > to the processes causing all fpu binarys to fail on non-fpu enabled
> > kernels.
> Not quite.  Unless we create a variant of glibc that neither
> initializes the FP control register on program startup, nor
> saves/restores the FP registers in setjmp/longjmp, the
> model of "simply sending SIGILL/SIGFPE" will result
> in *all* processes being terminated with extreme prejudice,
> starting with init!

Which is exactly i was trying to establish as when the fpu emulator
is not enabled the user should build a complete fp less userspace. And
when we edstablish the SIGILL/SIGFPE he is forced to do so which is
a "good thing(tm)"

Florian Lohoff                     +49-5201-669912
     Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?

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