Hi,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:09 PM, James Zern wrote:
> Ronald,
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
> wrote:
> > This is intended to workaround bug "665 Integer Divide Instruction May
> > Cause Unpredictable Behavior" on some early AMD CPUs, which causes a
> > div-by-zero in
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:09:30AM -0700, James Zern wrote:
>> > > Ronald,
>> > >
Hi Michael,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:09:30AM -0700, James Zern wrote:
> > > Ronald,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
> wrote:
>
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:09:30AM -0700, James Zern wrote:
>> > Ronald,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
>> > wrote:
>> > > This is
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:29:37PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:09:30AM -0700, James Zern wrote:
> > Ronald,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
> > wrote:
> > > This is intended to workaround bug "665 Integer Divide Instruction May
> > >
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:09:30AM -0700, James Zern wrote:
> Ronald,
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > This is intended to workaround bug "665 Integer Divide Instruction May
> > Cause Unpredictable Behavior" on some early AMD CPUs, which causes a
> > div-by-zero i
Ronald,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> This is intended to workaround bug "665 Integer Divide Instruction May
> Cause Unpredictable Behavior" on some early AMD CPUs, which causes a
> div-by-zero in this codepath, such as reported in Mozilla bug #1293996.
>
> Note that