Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Yes, the big 686 optimization is CMOV, and that one is
> > ultra-pervasive.
>
> Be careful there. CMOV is an optional instruction. gcc is arguably wrong
> in using cmov in '686' mode. Building libs with cmov makes sense though
> especially for the PIV with its ridiculously long pipeline
>
It is just a matter how you define "686 mode", otherwise the very concept
is meaningless.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Tim Wright
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Maciej W. Rozycki
- [PATCH] 2nd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells
- [PATCH] 3rd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells
- [PATCH] 4th try: i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells
- Re: [PATCH] 4th try: i386 rw_semaphores fix Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] 3rd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix Anton Blanchard

