From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu Oct 8 09:14:14 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9799D0B39 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:14:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C2E11E79 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:14:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so49638085pac.0 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:14:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=21sQ+sliqZCWyONWMr1urJSrOY0vw4K/xDUitPxU7aE=; b=c8t5qed6xTzuyl4mAG2zHvcMMoXaJ1arZi/KX+Mz0ZBDUo/thVPnYi7kC3yq9rdt6B JFZO/VC2PufK6I3OIkzDzpmZ7wpEsySe8nmHa+uNXABMM+bj6yplH9pRga6ggGW5/XSm 3FL6+gi1LEHN97KoGnBKsIeTa/LAPv723oeTO4acXIfe1GdSpIFYUzbrpMdgSVMX3eNL Ul6TukeTIPavhVTijG54b81TxeFIrP3xDMOzRQHeYFTojy419qXjmMMgYol78dpNDSl6 JtY8x8n8uqgsDGfbW7J7TehcvH3w9zwQF8m2IhInGyakLCSNlSpA3Rvk98jCyDkXXsZE /2mA== X-Received: by 10.68.204.65 with SMTP id kw1mr6905125pbc.76.1444295653652; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.11] (c-24-16-212-205.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [24.16.212.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id xo2sm14114128pbb.48.2015.10.08.02.14.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: Comparing behavior of test-fesetenv.c on AMD Opterons and Intel Xeons: running FNSTENV on Opteron -- should it zero out __x87.__other? From: Garrett Cooper X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13A452) In-Reply-To: <20151008080621.GP2257@kib.kiev.ua> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:14:12 -0700 Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20151008072444.GO2257@kib.kiev.ua> <20151008080621.GP2257@kib.kiev.ua> To: Konstantin Belousov X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:14:14 -0000 > On Oct 8, 2015, at 01:06, Konstantin Belousov wrote:= >=20 >> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:38:15AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: ... >> Hi kib! >>=20 >> Ok -- that's what my gut was telling me when I was reading the spec, but I= needed a second opinion. Interesting how Intel leaves the __other field alo= ne and AMD [opterons] don't ;/.. >=20 > Your statement does not make any sense. Re-read what I tell above. > The __other field is not written by code, the code does not change > by the matter of being run on Intel or AMD processors. It just happens > so that on one of your system the stack are seems to be zero, while on > another, it does not. I thought __other corresponded to C0-C3 based on my read of the spec -- is t= hat incorrect? Thanks!=