Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:51:33 -0800 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.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: <200201112251.RAA07625@repulse.cnchost.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:36:59 PST." <3C3F690B.9A5959A1@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [ ... ] > > I am not prepared to speculate on the use of FP & SSE > > registers at this point except for one thing: an FP exception > > *must* be delivered to whichever thread caused it. Any bugs > > in SIGFPE delivery is a separate discussion! > [ ... ] > > Cool. We are all in agreement on this: the thread that > caused it is the thread that executes an FPU instruction > after an error in an instruction by some FPU using thread, > whatever thread that is. > > 8-p > > The exception signalling lags the event that was the cause > of the exception in x86 hardware, if this wasn't clear... What is not clear to me is why is this relevant only now -- whether the kernel switches threads or they are switched in the user mode, the bug (if there is one) will bite you the same, right? Explain it real slowly. :-) I'd better readup on x86 FP.... 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?200201112251.RAA07625>