On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:43:30PM +0100, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > Hi,
> > just to get it right - As i thought the FPU emulator is not really
> > optional - It is even required for fpu-enabled devices which means
> > we should clean the code in that way that if the user decides to
> > compile in the fpu emulator into the kernel we do an autodetection
> > upfront and change some of the entry/exit/lazy_fpu stuff.
> > If the user decides not to compile in the FPU Emulator he is on his
> > own and we ignore the whole FPU stuff and simply send SIGILL/SIGFPE
> > to the processes causing all fpu binarys to fail on non-fpu enabled
> > kernels.
>
> Not quite. Unless we create a variant of glibc that neither
> initializes the FP control register on program startup, nor
> saves/restores the FP registers in setjmp/longjmp, the
> model of "simply sending SIGILL/SIGFPE" will result
> in *all* processes being terminated with extreme prejudice,
> starting with init!
Which is exactly i was trying to establish as when the fpu emulator
is not enabled the user should build a complete fp less userspace. And
when we edstablish the SIGILL/SIGFPE he is forced to do so which is
a "good thing(tm)"
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-5201-669912
Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?
