Re: Inquiry about brl statement

From: David Mosberger-Tang <dmosberger_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-04-28 02:18:52
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.html
Received on Sat Apr 28 10:36:40 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2007-04-28 10:37:01 EST