Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:44:46 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: 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: <20020112054041.J3330-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <15423.10271.161919.615825@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Nate Williams wrote: > > > > > 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. Bruce 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?20020112054041.J3330-100000>