Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:25:33 +0100 | Subject | Re: Inconsistencies in 3dNOW handling | From | Yann Dirson <> |
| |
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 ?
Regards, -- Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ? debian-email: <dirson@debian.org> | Support Debian GNU/Linux: | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable ! http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |