Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:51:36 -0700 From: NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Comparing behavior of test-fesetenv.c on AMD Opterons and Intel Xeons: running FNSTENV on Opteron -- should it zero out __x87.__other? Message-ID: <CAGHfRMBD4m-%2Bi33nKpm=svfpJ-HrxbRmBU5teKZNcz8XhfN=0A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20151008093355.GS2257@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CAGHfRMBwPfx2rNhHW2xviz59YsEDobjWfemY985PZc3=VM5C6w@mail.gmail.com> <20151008072444.GO2257@kib.kiev.ua> <F04AE220-DF83-44AC-8C23-A36F8D6EB9CA@gmail.com> <20151008080621.GP2257@kib.kiev.ua> <C2CE118D-8CB1-483B-9216-1ED89B9B830B@gmail.com> <20151008093355.GS2257@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:14:12AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> >> > On Oct 8, 2015, at 01:06, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:38:15AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> Hi kib! >> >> >> >> 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 alone and AMD [opterons] don't ;/.. >> > >> > 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 that incorrect? > > What are C0-C3 you reference ? I can only think about condition code > bits from the FPU status word which have that names, but the word is put > into the __status field of fenv_t. You're right. The __other field points to other registers in the FPU. __status covers what both the AMD64 and Intel x64 specs refer to as `C0-C3'. > And, what spec did you read ? I posted links to the specs in my original email. Unfortunately I didn't fully rewrite the bug report so where they factored into it in my original email was unfortunately lost: 1. http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/26569_APM_v5.pdf 2. http://www.intel.com/Assets/en_US/PDF/manual/253666.pdf Thanks! -NGie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGHfRMBD4m-%2Bi33nKpm=svfpJ-HrxbRmBU5teKZNcz8XhfN=0A>