Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:41:29 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <15418.5641.919327.356015@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020107163310.29377A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <15418.4935.657413.312252@caddis.yogotech.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020107163310.29377A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > Also, forgive my ignorance, but why are we using fnsave instead of > > fsave? From my reading of the x86 manuals, it would seem that there is > > the possibility of getting bogus FPU results with fnsave (vs. fsave) > > since by using fsave, we give the FPU a chance to finish up the current > > FPU operations before we save the state? I could see where they might > > be a race where we might end up storing intermediate results of the FPU > > in some instances. > > > > Or, is there something else I'm missing? (The reason I ask is that the > > JDK uses fsave to be 'safe', but maybe it's not buying us anything other > > than warm fuzzies. :) > > I don't know :-) That's what it was using when John Birrell was > maintaining libc_r. I can always change it... How about it John? Why the use of 'fnsave' when storing FPU context vs. using fsave? Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the messagehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15418.5641.919327.356015>