On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Jun Sun wrote: > > I don't have an FPU-less system and I can't check such code. I need to > > depend on others (I couldn't test all possible configurations anyway). > > However, with CONFIG_HAS_FPU approach I know for sure it will work for any > MIPS CPU, as long as the programmer specifies it correctly. :-) Tha latter being a BIG if. > > If > > we have a chance to get an exception we have to catch it, of course > > (that's trivial to handle in Linux). > > > > No effort (as in CONFIG_HAS_FPU approach) is still better than trivial or > small effort ( as in run-time detection). :-) Regardless of the CONFIG_HAS_FPU option you still need to check if a FPU is present. > I am very curious what makes you object to the CONFIG_HAS_FPU approach, > especially you said earlier it was not about the inability to support both FPU > and FPU-less CPUs with the same kernel image. That's pretty orthogonal -- I do not object the CONFIG_HAS_FPU option (I even favor it, if it could save us unneeded bits), but whether having it or not, we still have to properly detect FP hardware. A silent crash or an obscure oops is not an option in case of a config error. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
