From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57837 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGCHz-00087z-Gw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:08:44 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <av1474@comtv.ru>) id 1PGCHy-0005GV-89
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:08:43 -0500
Received: from fe02x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.165]:58931 helo=akado.ru)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <av1474@comtv.ru>) id 1PGCHx-0005G6-VY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:08:42 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:08:33 +0300 (MSK)
From: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Bug report about x86 'bt' insn
In-Reply-To: <8639r9b5wc.fsf@shell.gmplib.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1011101807490.2138@linmac>
References: <86eiay344b.fsf@shell.gmplib.org>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1011062015030.1406@linmac>
	<86wroqmhso.fsf@shell.gmplib.org>
	<20101106185932.GB26083@nightcrawler>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1011062220180.1907@linmac>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1011062223590.2139@linmac>
	<86bp5xb6y8.fsf@shell.gmplib.org>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1011101717260.1854@linmac>
	<8639r9b5wc.fsf@shell.gmplib.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Torbjorn Granlund <tg@gmplib.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com>

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:

> malc <av1474@comtv.ru> writes:
> 
>   All is the keyword here, i doubt that exhaustive search was performed
>   furthermore, AMDs documentation (to the best of my knowledge still)
>   still maintains that ZF is undefined.
> 
> AMD indeed still says undefined in their documentation (as of two hours
> ago).  I have asked AMD for a clarification, mainly to make sure they
> are aware of Intel's documentation change.
> 
> (I am not certain about what you doubt.  As I said, I did not check all
> 2^64 operand values combined all possible bt bit position arguments.  I
> believe I have checked all 64-bit x86 processors implementations [two
> generations of Core2, NHM and WSM based Core ix, Via Nano, as well as all
> Athlon64/Opteron generations).)

I meant all CPU variants.

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru