From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 04:07:03 -0800 Received: from Cantor.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:56850 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by oss.sgi.com with SMTP id ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 04:06:40 -0800 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [213.95.15.136]) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E811E0CD; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:06:38 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: gee.suse.de: aj set sender to aj@suse.de using -f Mail-Copies-To: never To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: "Florian Lohoff" , Subject: Re: [RESUME] fpu emulator References: <20010208122030.A5408@paradigm.rfc822.org> <005d01c091c4$69940620$0deca8c0@Ulysses> From: Andreas Jaeger Date: 08 Feb 2001 13:06:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <005d01c091c4$69940620$0deca8c0@Ulysses> ("Kevin D. Kissell"'s message of "Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:43:30 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing "Kevin D. Kissell" writes: > > Hi, > > just to get it right - As i thought the FPU emulator is not really > > optional - It is even required for fpu-enabled devices which means > > we should clean the code in that way that if the user decides to > > compile in the fpu emulator into the kernel we do an autodetection > > upfront and change some of the entry/exit/lazy_fpu stuff. > > If the user decides not to compile in the FPU Emulator he is on his > > own and we ignore the whole FPU stuff and simply send SIGILL/SIGFPE > > to the processes causing all fpu binarys to fail on non-fpu enabled > > kernels. > > Not quite. Unless we create a variant of glibc that neither > initializes the FP control register on program startup, nor glibc doesn't initialize it for shared programs. > saves/restores the FP registers in setjmp/longjmp, the Any ideas how this can be done? > model of "simply sending SIGILL/SIGFPE" will result > in *all* processes being terminated with extreme prejudice, > starting with init! Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RESUME] fpu emulator References: <20010208122030.A5408@paradigm.rfc822.org> <005d01c091c4$69940620$0deca8c0@Ulysses> From: Andreas Jaeger Date: 08 Feb 2001 13:06:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <005d01c091c4$69940620$0deca8c0@Ulysses> ("Kevin D. Kissell"'s message of "Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:43:30 +0100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Return-Path: To: "Kevin D. Kissell" Cc: Florian Lohoff , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20010208120629.Gsi2RIg5AsX2tpzwspxVvC9Ie8Nna7lxKTVKzbjdhOg@z> "Kevin D. Kissell" writes: > > Hi, > > just to get it right - As i thought the FPU emulator is not really > > optional - It is even required for fpu-enabled devices which means > > we should clean the code in that way that if the user decides to > > compile in the fpu emulator into the kernel we do an autodetection > > upfront and change some of the entry/exit/lazy_fpu stuff. > > If the user decides not to compile in the FPU Emulator he is on his > > own and we ignore the whole FPU stuff and simply send SIGILL/SIGFPE > > to the processes causing all fpu binarys to fail on non-fpu enabled > > kernels. > > Not quite. Unless we create a variant of glibc that neither > initializes the FP control register on program startup, nor glibc doesn't initialize it for shared programs. > saves/restores the FP registers in setjmp/longjmp, the Any ideas how this can be done? > model of "simply sending SIGILL/SIGFPE" will result > in *all* processes being terminated with extreme prejudice, > starting with init! Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj