From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:40:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([IPv6:::ffff:66.187.233.31]:15059 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:40:11 +0100 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5OAdje1019773; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:39:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (mail@vpn50-12.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5OAdh020462; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:39:43 -0400 Received: from rsandifo by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BdRdu-0002UQ-00; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:39:42 +0100 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: cgd@broadcom.com, David Daney , Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Patch] / 0 should send SIGFPE not SIGTRAP... References: <40C9F5A4.2050606@avtrex.com> <40C9F5FE.8030607@avtrex.com> <40C9F7F0.50501@avtrex.com> From: Richard Sandiford Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:39:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Maciej W. Rozycki's message of "Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:30:48 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <87y8mdgryp.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 5356 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: rsandifo@redhat.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips "Maciej W. Rozycki" writes: > Or should we get rid of the 20-bit "break" completely? The two-argument > version provides the same functionality, although the 10-bit codes to be > used do not map to the 20-bit equivalent "optically" very well. > Especially if decimal notation is used. I notice no-one's really responded to this question yet. FWIW, on gut instinct, I'd personally prefer to drop the 20-bit break than introduce a new, non-standard name for it. Just an opinion though. I won't argue against anyone saying different. ;) Richard