Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:22:25 -0500 From: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> To: "NIIMI Satoshi" <sa2c@sa2c.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: amd64/113111: Potentially wrong instructions will be produced for EM64T Message-ID: <2fd864e0705291722w12259ae9kd31bb451c3cc4403@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <465CB901.1000403@sa2c.net> References: <200705292053.l4TKrPLG027368@freefall.freebsd.org> <465CB901.1000403@sa2c.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/29/07, NIIMI Satoshi <sa2c@sa2c.net> wrote: > > Mark Linimon wrote: > > I'm confused, I thought "k8" was "AMD-only"? > > FreeBSD/amd64 runs on both AMD's AMD 64 CPUs (Opteron, Athlon 64, etc) > and Intel's EM64T CPUs (Xeon, Core 2, etc). > > I assume the issue here is the -march setting, when CPUTYPE isn't set for lib32, in Makefile.inc1. The way I see it, this can be handled either in the errata, or release notes, (set CPUTYPE/-march on EM64T), or the proposed patch. I guess the real question is what's being offically supported, AMD64, or both? This isn't the only instruction difference between AMD64 and EM64T, so there may be other things that need to be examined... but these things causing issues would appear to be fairly rare, given the lack of AMD64 PRs related to EM64T crashes or odd behavior on unknown instructions. There is also the difference between early EM64T, and newer EM64T chips, so that might be something to look at too. --- Harrison Grundy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2fd864e0705291722w12259ae9kd31bb451c3cc4403>