|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2012-09-03 17:54:23
|
On Monday, September 03, 2012, Florian Krohm wrote: > > The reason it doesn't show them by default is that it generates a whole > > bunch of noise on x86(_64). > > Yeah, this is what I thought, too. After all most emwarns are for that > platform. I did some trial runs with enabled emulation warnings but none > were issued. On further consideration, I think they are issued on x86 (32 bit) if the client tries to switch the FPU from 80 bit precision to 64 bit. Or something like that. Doesn't happen very often though. They are also issued, at least on x86 (32 and 64 bit), and possible others, if the client tries to unmask one of the 6 IEEE FP exception bits (viz, select non-default fixup actions on FP exceptions). > > And > > also, for people using the Intel compilers, the Intel runtime library > > messes with the FPU settings in a way which cause an emwarn at startup > > each time. Along the lines of "it is asking for a fast-but-inaccurate > > FP mode (RAZ/DAZ), but I can't do that, so I'm going to remain in the > > slower-but-accurate mode". > > OK, I get that and see why you don't want to change the default. I must admit I am not enthusiastic to do so. Although it occurred to me later, if it is important for you, what we could do is have per-emwarn show/no-show defaults, so we can hide the x86 etc ones by default but display the s390 ones. J |