Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:51:59 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <20020111145159.N7984@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <15423.27120.926839.725176@caddis.yogotech.com>; from nate@yogotech.com on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:40:48PM -0700 References: <3C37E559.B011DF29@vigrid.com> <200201112141.QAA25529@devonshire.cnchost.com> <15423.27120.926839.725176@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> [020111 14:46] wrote: > > The point is that this may not be a valid assumption w/regard to the FPU > state. The necessity of saving/restoring the FPU state *IS* the primary > subject of the the entire discussion, with the secondary part being that > x86 hardware is broken, so it may not be possible to guarantee delivery > of FPU exceptions to the same context that caused it. Couldn't this just be simply done by calling the "wait for fop to complete" instruction before switching out an FP using thread? -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020111145159.N7984>