From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Mosberger-Tang" Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:18:52 +0000 Subject: Re: Inquiry about brl statement Message-Id: List-Id: References: <200704271716.57969.christian.kandeler@hob.de> In-Reply-To: <200704271716.57969.christian.kandeler@hob.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org As I remember it, a taken branch acts as a stop whereas a non-taken branch doesn't (so if no explicit stop bit is following a branch, then it must be OK for the entire group to be executed in parallel). I suppose it's possible the definition changed or that my (admittedly bad) memory is playing tricks on me. ;-) --david On 4/27/07, Christian Kandeler wrote: > Hello, > > in the definition of the BRL_COND_FSYS_BUBBLE_DOWN macro in > arch/ia64/kernel/gate.S, shouldn't there be a stop bit after the brl.cond > instruction? According to the Intel specs, the current definition (which has > no stop bit) triggers undefined behavior. > > > Regards, > Christian Kandeler > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Mosberger Consulting LLC, http://www.mosberger-consulting.com/