On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Ken Nakata wrote:

> SamMaEl <rimsky@teleport.com> writes:
> > I know my 540c
> > has the LC040, so has the additional FPE problem, though it worked fine
> > otherwise.
> 
> I know neither our FPE or SoftwareFPU supports the broken LC040, but
> what problem are you having otherwise?  Are you still getting seg
> faults?  Or is it just the result of math function isn't right?

	My LC040 is a good one... works fine with SoftwareFPU, and has ran
Norton Utilities' FPU tests, etc. Even played Warcraft II on it against a
friend on my Q900 over the ethernet ;-) Had no problems, even with all the
graphics intensive stuff.

	I haven't ran NetBSD on the PB540c in quite awhile... I think it
was at 1.2G at the time. But, I got alot of seg faults when I did. I don't
know how much

> > But, since most machines capable of running NetBSD DO have
> > some sort of FPU, not alot of attention has been paid to it.
> 
> You're right, but there's something else.  It's hard to debug FPE on a
> machine with FPU.  It's very tedious.  Now that NetBSD (reportedly)
> runs on LC040, people could debug FPE directly on their LC040 boxes.

	True.. which is why I'm trying to get my 540c setup again. I'm
installing it as I type, so we'll see ;-)

> > 	P.S. Any pointers on where to look for help? Would talking to the
> > SoftwareFPU guy hurt at all? It may not work quite the way our FPE does,
> > but I'm sure he should know a bit about it to be able to give us some
> > clues...
> 
> What kind of "clues" are you looking for?  BTW, so many people have
> suggested asking SoftwareFPU's developer for help on FPE (whether
> regarding LC040 or not), it made it into the FAQ.

	Yeah, I read that ;-) I interpreted it as: Porting SoftwareFPU to
NetBSD wouldn't be very feasible. 

	Ryan

-----
HELO... my name is rewt... you have SIGKILLed my father... prepare to vi!