Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:51:37 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>, Martin Cracauer <cracauer@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/include npx.h Message-ID: <38C96E69.F002B997@newsguy.com> References: <200003101756.JAA90710@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003102057080.79394-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> <20000310133936.B14279@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000310224345.A20522@cons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Martin Cracauer wrote:
>
> > > > cracauer 2000/03/10 09:56:33 PST
> > > >
> > > > Modified files:
> > > > sys/i386/include npx.h
> > > > Log:
> > > > Change the default FPU control word so that exceptions for new
> > > > processes are now masked until set by fpsetmask(3).
>
> The only real drawback now is that our experienced user can't really
> choose anymore. In the past, you could change your own machines to
> masked exceptions, but now ports will stop inserting fpsetmask(3)
> calls soon and hence the other way for the cautios user will not work
> for long (unless the mass is high enough to catch those ports). But
> since you don't gain more from blindly inserted fpsetmask calls than
> from a default-to-masked the real paranoid people will maybe see the
> situation as improved, not weakend.
Isn't there any way to make this sysctl'able?
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
dcs@newsguy.com
dcs@freebsd.org
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone bind them.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38C96E69.F002B997>