Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:54:56 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <15423.27968.568803.625566@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20020111145159.N7984@elvis.mu.org> References: <3C37E559.B011DF29@vigrid.com> <200201112141.QAA25529@devonshire.cnchost.com> <15423.27120.926839.725176@caddis.yogotech.com> <20020111145159.N7984@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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? According to Bruce, this is broken, since this is what 'fsave' does. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15423.27968.568803.625566>