On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Jun Sun wrote:
> > I don't have an FPU-less system and I can't check such code. I need to
> > depend on others (I couldn't test all possible configurations anyway).
>
> However, with CONFIG_HAS_FPU approach I know for sure it will work for any
> MIPS CPU, as long as the programmer specifies it correctly. :-)
Tha latter being a BIG if.
> > If
> > we have a chance to get an exception we have to catch it, of course
> > (that's trivial to handle in Linux).
> >
>
> No effort (as in CONFIG_HAS_FPU approach) is still better than trivial or
> small effort ( as in run-time detection). :-)
Regardless of the CONFIG_HAS_FPU option you still need to check if a FPU
is present.
> I am very curious what makes you object to the CONFIG_HAS_FPU approach,
> especially you said earlier it was not about the inability to support both FPU
> and FPU-less CPUs with the same kernel image.
That's pretty orthogonal -- I do not object the CONFIG_HAS_FPU option (I
even favor it, if it could save us unneeded bits), but whether having it
or not, we still have to properly detect FP hardware. A silent crash or
an obscure oops is not an option in case of a config error.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
|