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