From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Apr 17 18:57:27 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA23803
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 18:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bookcase.com (root@notes.bookcase.com [207.22.115.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA23797
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 18:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (chadf@localhost) by bookcase.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA00597 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:57:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:57:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Chad M. Fraleigh" <chadf@bookcase.com>
X-Sender: chadf@notes
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: FS & GS registers not in sigcontext?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970416141023.13445A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970417214854.562A-100000@notes>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


	While looking through the wine code I noticed this little comment:

#ifdef linux
/* fs and gs are not supported on *BSD. Hopefully we won't need them. */
#define FS_sig(context)      ((context)->sc_fs)
#define GS_sig(context)      ((context)->sc_gs)
#endif

	And I was just kinda curious why they weren't in there? I mean is
there a reason behind it, or is it just one of those "nobody's bothered
yet" kinda things?


-Chad