linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: config option vs. run-time detection (the debate continues ...)

To: Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: config option vs. run-time detection (the debate continues ...)
From: Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:58:38 +0100
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <3A83247D.FC52431D@mvista.com>; from jsun@mvista.com on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:05PM -0800
Organization: rfc822 - pure communication
References: <3A830135.B1304041@mvista.com> <01bf01c0921b$6de26620$0deca8c0@Ulysses> <3A83247D.FC52431D@mvista.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:05PM -0800, Jun Sun wrote:

>  a) HAS_FPU & FPU_EMULATION - which is necessary when FPU is not a full
> implementation.
> 
>  b) !HAS_FPU & FPU_EMULATION - which allows one to run fpu-ful userland
> application

These 2 cases are perfectly good 

>  c) HAS_FPU & !FPU_EMULATION - when FPU is a full implementaion (or use the
> old incomplete emaulation?)
> 
>  d) !HAS_FPU & !FPU_EMULATION - it mandates non-fpu-ful userland (which to me
> is perfectly fine)

These 2 cases present a user/developer who decided not to have any
fpu support kernel/cpu wise. Kill his apps if using "illegal" instructions.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                  flo@rfc822.org             +49-5201-669912
     Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?


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