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 <christian.kandeler@hob.de> 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/ - 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.htmlReceived on Sat Apr 28 10:36:40 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2007-04-28 10:37:01 EST