From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 14 21:32:06 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B41316A41C
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:32:06 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gemini@geminix.org)
Received: from gen129.n001.c02.escapebox.net (gen129.n001.c02.escapebox.net
	[213.73.91.129])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6B943D1D
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:32:06 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gemini@geminix.org)
Message-ID: <42AF4CCE.9040308@geminix.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:31:58 +0200
From: Uwe Doering <gemini@geminix.org>
Organization: Private UNIX Site
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050526
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Norbert Koch <NKoch@demig.de>
References: <000001c57016$8e4b0600$4801a8c0@ws-ew-3.W2KDEMIG>
In-Reply-To: <000001c57016$8e4b0600$4801a8c0@ws-ew-3.W2KDEMIG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received: from gemini by geminix.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.51 (FreeBSD))
	id 1DiJ0p-0007lm-3E; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:31:59 +0200
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Obvious bug in /sys/i386/include/bus.h (was: bus_at386.h)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:32:06 -0000

Norbert Koch wrote:
>>>So
>>>how can I fix this in assembly. I am not an expert with inlined assembly,
>>>so
>>>maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong, but something like this needs
>>>to
>>>be added:
>>>
>>>or %ecx, %ecx
>>>jz 2
>>>
>>>2:
>>
>>This is wrong beacause the result is stored in ecx. Better using
>>JECXZ instruction
>>before the loop.
> 
> No, it's a correct method to set/reset the zero flag:
>     (X | X) == X just as (X & X) == X
> 
> So, he could also write: "and %ecx, %ecx".
> [...]

Also, on pipelined processors like Intel Pentium and better you would 
use "test %ecx, %ecx" for this purpose which internally is an "and", but 
since it drops the result and just sets the condition register it is 
faster than "and" or "or".  At least potentially.  Depends on the 
surrounding code.

    Uwe
-- 
Uwe Doering         |  EscapeBox - Managed On-Demand UNIX Servers
gemini@geminix.org  |  http://www.escapebox.net