From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <musl-return-15405-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with SMTP id 9f7d204b
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>;
	Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:39:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 26084 invoked by uid 550); 7 Feb 2020 21:39:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 26064 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2020 21:39:09 -0000
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:38:57 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20200207213857.GL1663@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <20200118094015.GE23985@port70.net>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001240755500.28245@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200124011122.GP30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001241227030.6298@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200124045554.GR30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001241604050.13947@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200124134402.GS30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001251055530.14796@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200125001100.GY30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2002080807590.3230@key0.esi.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2002080807590.3230@key0.esi.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Subject: Re: [musl] Considering x86-64 fenv.s to C

On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Damian McGuckin wrote:
> 
> In considering an i386 architecture with XMM capability, there is an issue
> with fegetenv()/feholdexcept() and fesetenv()/feupdateenv().
> 
> There is no __mxcsr field in the fenv_t structure.
> 
> So, there is no way to return the MXCSR using the first pair.
> 
> Do I just bury any MXCSR exceptions into the __status_word?
> 
> Regards - Damian

There's plenty of unused space to tuck it away somewhere if we wanted,
but I don't know if it's actually useful to do so. I'm fine with just
merging the states like the other fenv functions do.

Rich