[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP...

To: Richard Sandiford <>
Subject: Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP...
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:34:44 +0200 (CEST)
Cc:, David Daney <>, Ralf Baechle <>,,
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <mailpost.1086981251.16853@news-sj1-1> <> <> <>
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> >  Or should we get rid of the 20-bit "break" completely?  The two-argument
> > version provides the same functionality, although the 10-bit codes to be
> > used do not map to the 20-bit equivalent "optically" very well.  
> > Especially if decimal notation is used.
> I notice no-one's really responded to this question yet.  FWIW, on gut
> instinct, I'd personally prefer to drop the 20-bit break than introduce
> a new, non-standard name for it.

 Well, this is essentially what the patch does.  Or do you mean: "drop it
and if anyone screams, consider an alternative?"  I'd find it acceptable,
actually, but it's not my opinion that really matters here.

+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail:, PGP key available        +

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