Messages in this thread | | | From | richard.brunner@amd ... | Subject | RE: Intel vs AMD64 | Date | Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:28:02 -0600 |
| |
Not sure about other architectures, but in the AMD64 architecture, the 66h and 67h prefixes can be applied to the near branch instructions and have an *architecturally* defined action (rather than implementation-defined action) which all AMD64 processors follow. It's all described in the AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manuals ...
(http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_739_7044,00.html)
But, I definitely agree that it is sorta hard to figure out what a 64-bit general purpose compiler would actually *do* with some of them. However, there are embedded/special-purpose scenarios where this might be just fine.
For example, for JMP (near):
In 64-bit mode, if the JMP target is specified by a displacement in the instruction, the signed displacement is added to the rIP (of the following instruction), and the result is truncated to 16 or 64 bits depending on operand size. [rb: 64-bit is default, 66h forces 16-bit]. The signed displacement can be 8 bits, 16 bits, or 32 bits, depending on the opcode and the operand size. [rb: 8-bit has its own opcode (EB); for the E9 opcode: 32-bit is default and 66h forces 16-bit].
] -Rich ... ] AMD Fellow ] richard.brunner at amd com
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nakajima, Jun [mailto:jun.nakajima@intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:20 PM > To: H. Peter Anvin; Timothy Miller > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: RE: Intel vs AMD x86-64 > > Yes, that's the very reason I said "useless for compilers." The way > IP/RIP is updated is different (and implementation specific) on those > processors if 66H is used with a near branch. For example, RIP may be > zero-extended to 64 bits (from IP), as you observed before. > > Jun > >-----Original Message----- > >From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:hpa@zytor.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:14 PM > >To: Timothy Miller > >Cc: Nakajima, Jun; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64 > > > >Timothy Miller wrote: > >> > >> > >> Nakajima, Jun wrote: > >> > >>> For near branches (CALL, RET, JCC, JCXZ, JMP, etc.), the operand size is > >>> forced to 64 bits on both processors in 64-bit mode, basically meaning > >>> RIP is updated. > >>> > >>> Compilers would typically use a JMP short for "intraprocedural jumps", > >>> which requires just an 8-bit displacement relative to RIP. > >> > >> I see. It's too bad you can't have a 16-bit displacement. > >> > >> Ummm... so if 66H were used with a near branch, would that affect the > >> size of the immediate operand which gets added to RIP, or would that > >> affect the the portion of IP/EIP/RIP affected? If it's the latter, > >> that's pretty silly. > >> > > > >Yes, that would be pretty silly. > > > >I honestly don't remember off the top of my head what "o16 jmp blah" > >does on i386; I have a vague memory that it zero-extends %eip to 32 > >bits, which makes it useless, of course. > > > > -hpa >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |