RE: [Linux-ia64] New rev 2.1 SDM for Itanium published

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2002-11-23 05:27:26
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:08:39 -0800, "Jim Hull" <> said:

  >> If so, should this be noted somewhere so that naive
  >> people who read the manuals don't assume that it's implemented?

  Jim> There is a new "ao" bit in CPUID[4], which as described on p. 1:32, will
  Jim> be 1 only if the new larger atomic ops are implemented.  Do you think
  Jim> this is insufficient?

The ao bit seems to have gotten lost in the final version of SDM2.1.
It's mentioned (indirectly) in the Document Revision history, but in
the CPUID[4] description, only "branchlong" and "spontaneous deferral"
show up.

Received on Fri Nov 22 10:29:06 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:11 EST