From owner-freebsd-arch  Fri Jan 11 12: 4: 6 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3BD37B41A
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from caddis.yogotech.com (caddis.yogotech.com [206.127.123.130])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28309;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:03:22 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate@yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by caddis.yogotech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0BK3Jk11726;
	Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:03:19 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate)
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15423.17671.257443.697384@caddis.yogotech.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:03:19 -0700
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>,
	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: <20020112054041.J3330-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <15423.10271.161919.615825@caddis.yogotech.com>
	<20020112054041.J3330-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
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

> > > > > > 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.

Unfortunately, that I will agree with.  I believe you are capable of
explaining, but it requires more details than you've been willing to
provide prior.



Nate

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message