From owner-freebsd-arch  Fri Jan 11 10:44:35 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C55037B405
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA20304;
	Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:44:05 +1100
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:44:46 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender:  <bde@gamplex.bde.org>
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
In-Reply-To: <15423.10271.161919.615825@caddis.yogotech.com>
Message-ID: <20020112054041.J3330-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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