Re: kernel usage of fxsave/fxrstor

2010-05-20 Thread b. f.
On 5/20/10, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:41:22PM -0400, b. f. wrote: >> I'm wondering why we equate cpu_fxsr and hw_instruction_sse in our >> kernel, when several families of Intel and AMD processors have >> fxsave/fxrstor, but not sse, and various documents from both compan

Re: kernel usage of fxsave/fxrstor

2010-05-20 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:41:22PM -0400, b. f. wrote: > I'm wondering why we equate cpu_fxsr and hw_instruction_sse in our > kernel, when several families of Intel and AMD processors have > fxsave/fxrstor, but not sse, and various documents from both companies > suggest that fxsave/fxrstor is fast

kernel usage of fxsave/fxrstor

2010-05-20 Thread b. f.
I'm wondering why we equate cpu_fxsr and hw_instruction_sse in our kernel, when several families of Intel and AMD processors have fxsave/fxrstor, but not sse, and various documents from both companies suggest that fxsave/fxrstor is faster than fsave/fnsave/frstor, even when only saving the fpu/mmx

Re: Efficient way to determine when a child process forks or calls exec

2010-05-20 Thread Dan McNulty
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Dan McNulty [100519 07:13] wrote: >> Thanks for all the great suggestions! >> >> It looks like the kevent system call is the closest to what I need. >> However, I didn't mention this, but I would like the process being >> traced to be s

Re: How to Include Headers for siginterrupt() and vsnprintf()

2010-05-20 Thread John Baldwin
On Thursday 20 May 2010 7:33:52 am Gabor PALI wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/19/10 15:15, John Baldwin wrote: > > What do they do to hide the prototypes? Do they set a specific version of > > POSIX or ISO C that they wish to use? Probably the code should not be doing > > that > > There is a file (rt

Re: How to Include Headers for siginterrupt() and vsnprintf()

2010-05-20 Thread Gabor PALI
Hi, On 05/19/10 15:15, John Baldwin wrote: > What do they do to hide the prototypes? Do they set a specific version of > POSIX or ISO C that they wish to use? Probably the code should not be doing > that There is a file (rts/PosixSource.h) which does this: #define _POSIX_SOURCE 1 #define _

GSoC: Binary patches to packages

2010-05-20 Thread Ivan Voras
Hello, As one of the SoC projects dealing with the ports/packages infrastructure, I will be working on infrastructure for building, applying and maintaining binary patches to packages. This is a part of the discussion at various threads I've started or participated in, but with a reduced scope.