Re: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Date: Mon Mar 06 2000 - 16:52:45 EST

Next message: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: SMBFS: recvmsg called within BH (was: Re: One more boobytrap needed for 2.2.15pre ?)"
Previous message: Neil Brown: "Re: [NFS] bad inode number: 0 and NFS"
In reply to: nathan.zook@amd.com: "RE: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism"
Next in thread: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

nathan.zook@amd.com wrote:
> >
> > Yup. It isn't even used to signal FPU errors on 486+ PCs.
> >
>
> It is in comaptibility mode. Which means we have to support it.
>

Compatibility mode isn't used by Linux. Which means we don't.

-hpa

-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: SMBFS: recvmsg called within BH (was: Re: One more boobytrap needed for 2.2.15pre ?)"
Previous message: Neil Brown: "Re: [NFS] bad inode number: 0 and NFS"
In reply to: nathan.zook@amd.com: "RE: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism"
Next in thread: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: [OT] fpu IRQ x86-ism"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:21 EST