Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:14:12 -0700 From: Garrett 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: <C2CE118D-8CB1-483B-9216-1ED89B9B830B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20151008080621.GP2257@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 01:06, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:= >=20 >> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:38:15AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: ... >> Hi kib! >>=20 >> 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 alo= ne and AMD [opterons] don't ;/.. >=20 > 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 t= hat incorrect? Thanks!=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C2CE118D-8CB1-483B-9216-1ED89B9B830B>