Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:16:41 -0600 | | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] X86: Optimise fls(), ffs() and fls64() |
| |
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:03:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > > > My trusty old 486 book [1] in the remarks about the BSF instruction: > > > > "The documentation on the 80386 and 80486 states that op1 is undefined if > > op2 is 0. In reality the 80386 will leave the value in op1 unchanged. > > The first versions of the 80486 will change op1 to an undefined value. > > Later version again will leave it unchanged." > > > > [1] Die Intel Familie in German language, by Robert Hummel, 1992 > > Ok, that explains my memory of us having tried this, at least. > > But I do wonder if any of the people working for Intel could ask the CPU > architects whether we could depend on the "don't write" for 64-bit mode. > If AMD already documents the don't-touch semantics, and if Intel were to > be ok with documenting it for their 64-bit capable CPU's, we wouldn't then > need to rely on undefined behavior.
I'll drop one of them a note.
-- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."
|  |