Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 07:08:14 -0700 From: Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_mutex.c Message-ID: <20020523070814.Q25907@stylus.haikugeek.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020523094322.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Thu, May 23, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400 References: <20020523161537.A10471@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <XFMail.20020523094322.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin [jhb@FreeBSD.org] wrote : > In Intel's documentation they said that all current look-alikes worked as > well. It's the opcode for 'rep mov'. I am curious if some implementations > trash %ecx, and if we are paranoid we could always clobber %ecx in the > constraints. [ ... ] The rep prefix doesn't modify any registers. You do need to make sure that %ecx was zero when you dispatch a rep mov (unles you're dispatching a rep mov $0, %ecx), or you'll get an infinite loop. -- Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> http://www.haikugeek.com "He who is not aware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge." -- Richard Whatley To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020523070814.Q25907>