Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:03:19 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <15423.17671.257443.697384@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20020112054041.J3330-100000@gamplex.bde.org> References: <15423.10271.161919.615825@caddis.yogotech.com> <20020112054041.J3330-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > > Why is reporting a SIGFPE considered broken? This is a valid exception, > > > > > > and it should be reported. > > > > > > > > > > Because the SIGFPE is for the broken context-switching code and not for > > > > > the program. > > > > > > > > Ok, let's try again. How can I make sure that a SIGFPE that occur due > > > > to a FPU operation is properly reported using fsave/frestor? > > > > > > The set of such proper reports is null, so it is easily generated by not > > > using fsave (sic) or frstor. > > > > Huh? Are you saying that there are *NO* floating-point exceptions that > > should be reported to a process? Doesn't posix require that exceptions > > be thrown. > > I'm not saying any more, since I have made negative progress attempting > to explain this. Unfortunately, that I will agree with. I believe you are capable of explaining, but it requires more details than you've been willing to provide prior. Nate 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?15423.17671.257443.697384>