On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 2:16 PM Lukas Fittl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi John, > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:01 AM John Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's not that bad that the hard-coded indexes are in two places, but > > it's also not necessary. I think "#define EAX 0 ...etc" is a fine, > > straightforward increase in readability compared to what we have now, > > and I don't see any downside. I suppose one argument in favor of the > > struct is that it avoids declaring variables of type > > array-of-4-unsigned in multiple places, but I think the array is fine, > > and adding a new typedef is additional cognitive friction. > > Sounds good, lets do it that way - adjusted to use macros instead of a struct.
Looks good. The only thing that I would change is the single-letter parameter/variable name "r". We could call it "reg" and it'd still be pretty short. If you agree or have another suggestion, I can change locally before pushing 0001 -- no need for a new patch set yet. > > Speaking of signedness, why is the array of ints sometimes signed and > > sometimes unsigned? > > The signedness is a MSVC-ism - I think its reasonable for us to work > with unsigned integers in our code, and pass them by casting to > __cpuid/__cpuidex (the MSVC variants). CI works with this, so fine by me. -- John Naylor Amazon Web Services
