This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
NIIBE Yutaka <gniibe@chroot.org> writes: >>> - you don't want to unify the size of the setjmp buffer? Even if the >>> SH3 has no FPU the room can be reserved and so more compatibility >>> among the platforms can give achieved. >> >> Sure. We should unify it for the kernel math emulation, for example. >> Niibe-san, do you have any opinion about this? > > Note that Ulrich says about the size, not the implementations of > setjmp/longjmp. > > I agree Ulrich. We can unify the _size_ of the setjump buffer, it's > the way to go. When someone will implement kernel math emulation for > SH-3, he could use the reserved fields with his implementation of > setjmp/longjmp. ok. We need to change the content of sysdeps/sh/sh4/__longjmp.S to suchlike #define HAVE_FPU #include <sysdeps/sh/__longjmp.S> and rewrite sysdeps/sh/__longjmp.S using HAVE_FPU, don't we? kaz
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |