Hi John, On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:01 AM John Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not that bad that the hard-coded indexes are in two places, but > it's also not necessary. I think "#define EAX 0 ...etc" is a fine, > straightforward increase in readability compared to what we have now, > and I don't see any downside. I suppose one argument in favor of the > struct is that it avoids declaring variables of type > array-of-4-unsigned in multiple places, but I think the array is fine, > and adding a new typedef is additional cognitive friction.
Sounds good, lets do it that way - adjusted to use macros instead of a struct. > Speaking of signedness, why is the array of ints sometimes signed and > sometimes unsigned? The signedness is a MSVC-ism - I think its reasonable for us to work with unsigned integers in our code, and pass them by casting to __cpuid/__cpuidex (the MSVC variants). > + * Returns false if the CPUID leaf/subleaf is not supported. > > Okay, thanks. I'd suggest using "true if X is supported" or "true if X > is supported, false otherwise" phrasing. Yup, agreed, that reads better, adjusted. See attached v13 with your feedback addressed in 0001 and 0005, otherwise the same as before. Thanks, Lukas -- Lukas Fittl
v13-0001-Refactor-handling-of-x86-CPUID-instructions.patch
Description: Binary data
v13-0002-Check-for-HAVE__CPUIDEX-and-HAVE__GET_CPUID_COUN.patch
Description: Binary data
v13-0003-pg_test_timing-Reduce-per-loop-overhead.patch
Description: Binary data
v13-0004-instrumentation-Streamline-ticks-to-nanosecond-c.patch
Description: Binary data
v13-0005-instrumentation-Use-Time-Stamp-Counter-TSC-on-x8.patch
Description: Binary data
v13-0006-pg_test_timing-Also-test-RDTSC-RDTSCP-timing-and.patch
Description: Binary data
v13-0007-instrumentation-ARM-support-for-fast-time-measur.patch
Description: Binary data
