Re: [hatari-devel] FPU detection, who is wrong?

To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] FPU detection, who is wrong?
From: Miro Kropáček <miro.kropacek@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:58:53 +0100
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=GeIXug7OGnqXoB5KJx5GraL5WhN7nb/xp4GW9tP1F28=; b=EQdHdRglV8cqjqOKGFVoF/uUSkZSzOjYYDuzrcRbgFwP9T94n+ytcbHMfwUhUYNAQV aD4H0txvcpAPXC7URY1shdHJwXxIf2j6NKXjs4SbPznPgRjBol80dw04/Pp7PVTOVGNx RXktD2jOhBTaX1r5fVlYNXMQqKgtpBo/Om7YxWWeUnTZiAn73aBKLzlfWlGXdg9Az4Ea ZZTTfcqiBvmKqq3I8CivouoMKh6HCAz92OdawaKVvB5mkRXZizbTRPRwQFBxvcdvRlzi ft0+DcAkLX7s/jkHxEKF7QeATdEFGvC0pb8x4UXV1FKl63J06wK/Od50A/IfU9IyL6vo DNBw==

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Thorsten Otto <halgara@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Isn't that a memory mapped FPU, accessed at 0xfffa40?

That won't be reported as 68881, at least not in the cookie.

I'm afraid so :-( In programs like Sysinfo it gets reported as 68881 but of course they perhaps look for both (native & memory mapped) solutions.

References:
- Re: [hatari-devel] FPU detection, who is wrong?
  - From: Miro Kropáček
- Re: [hatari-devel] FPU detection, who is wrong?
  - From: Thorsten Otto

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+