Barry deFreese, le Fri 22 Dec 2006 23:45:18 -0500, a écrit :
> 1) What do I do with the xmm space, ignore it?
Of course no, since fxsave will fill it up anyway.
> 2) Where is the best place to check for fxsr? Should it be done in
> fpu.c after we determine fpu_type = FP_387?
That should be fine
Samuel Thibault wrote:
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 ri
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
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:
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
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
Heya gang,
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. Here is
what gnumachs looks like:
struct i386_fp_save {
unsigned short fp_control; /* control */
unsigned short fp_unused_1;
