Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:46:12 +1100 (AEDT) From: Damian McGuckin <damianm@....com.au> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Considering x86-64 fenv.s to C On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, Rich Felker wrote: > If you don't feel ready to do unification or work on archs you're > unfamiliar with, I think it's okay to either (1) only do the x86 work > now, with no unification, or (2) start the unification in src/fenv/*.c, > but with the arch files left in place in src/fenv/*/*.[csS] for all the > archs that haven't been converted yet. I don't want to block improvement > of the x86 versions just because the bigger task is too big. I will revisit the abstraction without the i386/x86-?? architecture. I think that would work. > Another really stupid but perhaps very efficient idea we could do is > just emulating the flags. Add a TLS slot for an fexcept_t value, move > exceptions there as needed, and or it onto the result when reading > back current exceptions. This would also make it dirt cheap for the > math library to raise any exception it wants, without needing > arithmetic, and it would make it possible to have the math library > return errors via exception flags even on softfloat archs. That makes a lot of sense. That just leaves rounding and, even on the X86, the abstraction of getting/setting the register can be made generic. Regards - Damian Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037 Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.