Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:55:46 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, k Macy <kip_macy@yahoo.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@vicor-nb.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE question Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020125174754.4674A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <15441.56832.170618.611705@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Nate Williams wrote: > > > The FPU usage is problematic, but is also resolvable, as a > > > tools issue. > > > > > > Specifically, if an ELF section were generated whenever > > > the compiler generated FPU code (let's call this section > > > "flags", for the sake of argument), then the flag "FPU=1" > > > could be set there. > > > > [ ... ] > > > > Interesting. I think we only care about FPU state > > during signal deliver and preemptions though, and in > > that case, the kernel can just pass us the "FPU used" > > flag and/or "FPU format" along with the interrupted > > context. > > There's lots of talk about using this 'FPU used' flag, but at least my > read of things from the long discussion before was that it may not be > possible to implement this on the x86 architectures we currently > support. > > It sounds like a great idea, *IF* if can be done. The kernel knows if the FPU has been used and it also knows the format (x87 vs SSE/XMM). As long as the FPU context comes from the kernel, then it can also tell us whether it is valid and it's format. I'm reworking [gs]etcontext; let's hold off on this for a bit and I'll post the changes. -- Dan Eischen 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?Pine.SUN.3.91.1020125174754.4674A-100000>