Re: Gnumach FP Struct (Beating a dead horse)

2006-12-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Barry deFreese, le Thu 21 Dec 2006 09:54:05 -0500, a écrit : > OK, that makes sense, sorry. It just takes a while to get through my > thick skull sometimes. So about my question about adding a struct for > the fxsr stuff. I don't really want to add a union of 4 structs right, > I need two uni

Re: Gnumach FP Struct (Beating a dead horse)

2006-12-21 Thread Barry deFreese
Samuel Thibault wrote: Barry deFreese, le Thu 21 Dec 2006 00:17:34 -0500, a écrit : I apologize for keep going on about this but I still don't quite understand why a seperate struct is needed for i386_fp_regs. I told you: this permits to easily do what is written in fpu.c:

Re: Gnumach FP Struct (Beating a dead horse)

2006-12-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Barry deFreese, le Thu 21 Dec 2006 00:17:34 -0500, a écrit : > I apologize for keep going on about this but I still don't quite > understand why a seperate struct is needed for i386_fp_regs. I told you: this permits to easily do what is written in fpu.c: /* * Ensure that

Re: Gnumach FP Struct (Beating a dead horse)

2006-12-21 Thread Roland McGrath
doesn't matter the bytewise layout is set by the hw how you call the fields in c is taste ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd