From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jan 11 14:52:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8C537B417 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:51:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 32CBE10DDFA; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:51:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:51:59 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Nate Williams Cc: Bakul Shah , Dan Eischen , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <20020111145159.N7984@elvis.mu.org> References: <3C37E559.B011DF29@vigrid.com> <200201112141.QAA25529@devonshire.cnchost.com> <15423.27120.926839.725176@caddis.yogotech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15423.27120.926839.725176@caddis.yogotech.com>; from nate@yogotech.com on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:40:48PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Nate Williams [020111 14:46] wrote: > > The point is that this may not be a valid assumption w/regard to the FPU > state. The necessity of saving/restoring the FPU state *IS* the primary > subject of the the entire discussion, with the secondary part being that > x86 hardware is broken, so it may not be possible to guarantee delivery > of FPU exceptions to the same context that caused it. Couldn't this just be simply done by calling the "wait for fop to complete" instruction before switching out an FP using thread? -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message