| To: | cgd@broadcom.com, macro@linux-mips.org |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP... |
| From: | cgd@broadcom.com |
| Date: | Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:19:38 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | binutils@sources.redhat.com, ddaney@avtrex.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, rsandifo@redhat.com |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
personally, i'd make the comment on the 'break' testcase in mips32.s a bit clearer and more explicit. e.g. "for a while, break for mips32 took a 20 bit code. But that was incompatible and caused problems, so now it's back to the old 10 bit code, or two comma-separated 10 bit codes." Otherwise, people might look and say "huh?" chris |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP..., Maciej W. Rozycki |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP..., Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP..., Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP..., Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |