From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 13 12:52:56 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 9024716A41F
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:52:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from NKoch@demig.de)
Received: from server.absolute-media.de (server.absolute-media.de
	[213.239.231.9])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B95543D49
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:52:55 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from NKoch@demig.de)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by server.absolute-media.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A3685587;
	Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:52:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from server.absolute-media.de ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (server [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
	id 03926-09; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firewall.demig (p50839F04.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.131.159.4])
	by server.absolute-media.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE3E8505C;
	Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ws-ew-3 (ws-ew-3.w2kdemig [192.168.1.72])
	by firewall.demig (8.13.4/8.13.1) with SMTP id j5DCp3RS033621;
	Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:51:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from NKoch@demig.de)
From: "Norbert Koch" <NKoch@demig.de>
To: <gerarra@tin.it>, <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:51:02 +0200
Message-ID: <000001c57016$8e4b0600$4801a8c0@ws-ew-3.W2KDEMIG>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To: <429C8E8F00015E63@ims3a.cp.tin.it>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at absolute-media.de
Cc: hselasky@c2i.net
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: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:52:56 -0000

> >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.
>
> Greeting,
> rookie

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".

I may be wrong, but in the old 386/486 days the "jecxz" was even less
efficient, wasn't it?

<history>
Twenty years ago, my z80 programs  had a lot of lines like

  and a
  ret z

Weren't there discussions, if an nmos cpu consumed more electric power with
either "and a" or "or a"? ;-)
</history>


Norbert