[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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."

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-26 19:19    [W:0.045 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site