[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Inconsistencies in 3dNOW handling
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 08:57:29AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The test11pre2 code will also not run on a K6-II/III

I'll look at this.

> Some of the "MMX" instructions are part of "3Dnow" according to AMD
> publications. This is especially true for the "prefetch" instructions which
> have a different memnonic/opcode on Intel CPU's.

If we don't use them on pure MMX-enabled machine, but only on 3Dnow
ones, what about renaming those *mmx* {files,funcs} to *3dnow* ?

> > > - BTW, what does this 512 stand for ? Especially as it's used in
> > several places, a #define would seem nice at first glance.
> The 512 is a rough estimate of the minimum size of the copy that makes it
> worth saving and restoring the extra processor-state for using mmx.

What about "#define MMX_MIN_ACCELERATED_COPYSIZE 512" in mmx.h ?

Er... s/MMX/3DNOW/ :)

Hm, noone commented my note about usercopy.c's 3dnow code being
possibly fixed by cut-and paste from elsewhere ?

Yann Dirson <> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email: <> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable ! | Check <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.062 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site