On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Chris Gilbert wrote:

> > NB. the code in question could be made safer by adding a check for the cpu
> > class (which could be set up during boot).
> 
> Yep, I suppose the way to do it is to have an arm7 swi handler, just be a 
> matter of setting up the zero page differently.

I still don't see why this is necessary.  Is it expected that future ARMs
will define new instructions that will take the SWI trap, or something?  
Even if they do, the worst that will happen is that the new instructions
will cause the process to loop rather than catching a SIGILL, and I hardly
think that's an immediate cause for concern.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>