From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
To: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@csd.uu.se>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:22:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <403CCBE0.7050100@techsource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173EA2718@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com>
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> No, it's not a problem. Branches with 16-bit operand size are not useful
> for compilers.
From AMD's documentation, I got the impression that 66H caused near
branches to be 32 bits in long mode (default is 64).
So, Intel makes it 16 bits, and AMD makes it 32 bits?
Either way, I don't see much use for either one.
>
> Jun
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Chris Wedgwood [mailto:cw@f00f.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:53 PM
>>To: Nakajima, Jun
>>Cc: Pavel Machek; Linus Torvalds; Adrian Bunk; Herbert Poetzl; Mikael
>>Pettersson; Kernel Mailing List
>>Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64
>>
>>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:15:18PM -0800, Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Near branch with 66H prefix:
>>> As documented in PRM the behavior is implementation specific and
>>> should avoid using 66H prefix on near branches.
>>
>>Presumably this isn't a problem with current gcc's right?
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-25 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-25 3:24 Intel vs AMD x86-64 Nakajima, Jun
2004-02-25 16:22 ` Timothy Miller [this message]
2004-02-25 16:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2004-02-25 17:18 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-25 17:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2004-02-25 19:05 ` Timothy Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-02 23:22 Nakajima, Jun
2004-02-26 1:19 Nakajima, Jun
2004-02-26 16:04 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-27 3:16 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-02-25 20:07 Nakajima, Jun
2004-02-25 23:44 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-26 0:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
[not found] <1sRYA-1uZ-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1sSi2-1NC-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1sT4l-2CW-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-02-25 15:41 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-02-25 16:08 ` Moritz Muehlenhoff
2004-02-25 3:07 Nakajima, Jun
[not found] <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173EA2684@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2004-02-24 23:49 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-24 23:15 Nakajima, Jun
2004-02-25 1:52 ` Chris Wedgwood
2004-02-24 21:01 Sean Fao
2004-02-24 21:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-24 22:21 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-25 22:30 ` Davide Rossetti
2004-02-24 21:31 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-24 21:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-24 21:28 ` Dave Jones
2004-02-26 21:39 ` Kai Henningsen
2004-02-24 2:42 Albert Cahalan
2004-02-24 16:44 ` Dave Jones
2004-02-24 15:11 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-24 17:34 ` Dave Jones
2004-02-24 15:29 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-24 18:07 ` Dave Jones
2004-02-23 19:59 Xose Vazquez Perez
2004-02-23 18:10 Nakajima, Jun
2004-02-24 13:25 ` Pavel Machek
2004-02-18 21:28 Peter Maas
2004-02-18 21:26 Peter Maas
2004-02-18 1:44 Linus Torvalds
2004-02-18 9:56 ` Mikael Pettersson
2004-02-18 14:31 ` Diego Calleja García
2004-02-18 18:17 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2004-02-18 14:54 ` Stefan Smietanowski
2004-02-18 15:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-22 2:59 ` Herbert Poetzl
2004-02-22 3:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-22 3:39 ` Tomasz Rola
2004-02-22 3:47 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-02-22 4:12 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-02-23 0:38 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-23 2:17 ` Tom Vier
2004-02-22 8:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-02-22 10:00 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2004-02-23 15:51 ` Clay Haapala
2004-02-23 17:03 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-02-23 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-24 9:47 ` Kees Bakker
2004-02-24 9:59 ` viro
2004-02-24 10:59 ` Andrew Walrond
2004-02-23 18:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-02-23 21:25 ` Rik van Riel
2004-02-23 21:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-23 21:48 ` David S. Miller
2004-02-23 22:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-23 22:06 ` David S. Miller
2004-02-23 22:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2004-02-24 1:01 ` Thomas Zehetbauer
2004-02-24 1:11 ` John Heil
2004-02-24 13:32 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-24 14:39 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-02-24 19:43 ` Rogier Wolff
2004-02-24 19:49 ` John Heil
2004-02-24 20:03 ` Mike Fedyk
2004-02-24 20:03 ` John Heil
2004-02-24 21:20 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-25 18:40 ` Matt Seitz
2004-02-18 19:13 ` Aaron Lehmann
2004-02-19 6:02 ` Mikael Pettersson
2004-02-19 9:15 ` Terje Eggestad
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=403CCBE0.7050100@techsource.com \
--to=miller@techsource.com \
--cc=bunk@fs.tum.de \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikpe@csd.uu.se \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox