Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:12:26 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <20020114071226.R561@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20020111145159.N7984@elvis.mu.org>; from bright@mu.org on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 02:51:59PM -0800 References: <3C37E559.B011DF29@vigrid.com> <200201112141.QAA25529@devonshire.cnchost.com> <15423.27120.926839.725176@caddis.yogotech.com> <20020111145159.N7984@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-Jan-11 14:51:59 -0800, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> wrote: >* 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? Given the current implementation (lazy FPU context load), if the thread hadn't previously use FP, then issuing an fwait will cause a "device not available" trap to the kernel. Peter 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?20020114071226.R561>