lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Intel vs AMD x86-64
Timothy Miller wrote:
>
>
> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This is obviously an extremely minor nit-pick, because we're talking
> about one instruction here with an interpretation that is far from
> obvious, but given that there are now only two architectures which
> support x86-64, did Intel choose to do it differently from AMD because
> it was poorly defined, or because it wasn't important enough to want to
> impact the efficiency of the design?

How about because they messed up trying to clone the instruction set?
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. <-(quote)
>
> There are people who would go way out of their way to get a 5%
> improvement in performance or decrease in size. If using 66H with near
> branches could in some way do that, they would really really want to use
> it. This is why I'm curious.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.092 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site