linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP...
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:34:44 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: cgd@broadcom.com, David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <87y8mdgryp.fsf@redhat.com>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <40C9F5A4.2050606@avtrex.com> <40C9F5FE.8030607@avtrex.com> <40C9F7F0.50501@avtrex.com> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0406112039040.13062@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <mailpost.1086981251.16853@news-sj1-1> <yov57juduc7q.fsf@ldt-sj3-010.sj.broadcom.com> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0406222304340.23178@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <87y8mdgryp.fsf@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
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: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available        +

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