[Linux-ia64] Re: [PATCH] fill in si_code for fpu faults

From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes_at_sgi.com>
Date: 2002-12-13 07:23:20
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:14:31AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> Basically OK with me, however:
>  o What's the point of declaring fp_fault_info in a header file?  It's
>    used only in one place.

No particular reason.  Fixed.

>  o si_code is NOT a bitmask; it makes no sense at all for
>    fp_fault_si_code() to OR multiple values together; this makes me
>    highly suspicious that there is a misunderstanding somewhere...

Yes, there was a misunderstanding, but I think I get it now.  Fixed.

>  o Who defined FP_SWASST and FPE_DENORM?  I don't recall seeing them
>    in the ia64 psABI and they definitely look ia64-specific, so their
>    names should at least be prefixed by a double-underscore
>    (siginfo.h).

Yeah, they're ia64 specific, so I've prefixed them, but I'm not sure if
they're valid from an ABI perspective.  Should we just return FPE_FLTINV
for those cases?

>  o If you add stuff to asm/siginfo.h, don't forget to update glibc (in
>    sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ia64/bits/siginfo.h).


Hope this is a little better.

Thanks for looking at this,

Received on Thu Dec 12 12:23:35 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:11 EST