From owner-freebsd-current Mon Sep 7 01:04:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA06398 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:04:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.15.68.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA06390 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:04:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06975; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:04:29 +1000 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:04:29 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199809070804.SAA06975@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, cracauer@cons.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Floating Point Exceptions, signal handlers & subsequent ops Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> >I could also imagine extending struct sigcontext with fields for >> >control and status word so that the user can get the unmodified status >> >if the one-bit trap code isn't sufficient (either because multiple >> >bits may have been set or if the FPE_...... values aren't precise >> >enough, for example if the user needs to tell under- from overflow). >> >> This can wait until we implement SA_SIGINFO (post-3.0). > >Will we give up the old signal handler calls or still send the old >arguments to handlers not registered with SA_SIGINFO? Something like sigcontext arg must be passed so that the signal handler can return. Keep it source compatible if this is easy. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message