On 11/12/2013 02:52:57 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:15 +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Talking about "ideal implementation" is also singularly stupid.
>
> I just want the various arch implementations to match
> the d
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:15 +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Talking about "ideal implementation" is also singularly stupid.
>
> I just want the various arch implementations to match
> the docs. I know that's stupid.
>
> Maybe if you really don
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:15 +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Talking about "ideal implementation" is also singularly stupid.
I just want the various arch implementations to match
the docs. I know that's stupid.
Maybe if you really don't want to discuss things, you
should fix the documentation.
Do
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 15:34 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/10/2013 06:22 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps the current x86 bitops asm code is being conflated
>> > with the ideal implementation?
>> >
>> Yes, by you.
>
> Really? I
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 15:34 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 06:22 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the current x86 bitops asm code is being conflated
> > with the ideal implementation?
> >
> Yes, by you.
Really? I don't think so.
How does the use of signed long for an index
On 11/10/2013 06:22 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Perhaps the current x86 bitops asm code is being conflated
> with the ideal implementation?
>
Yes, by you.
x86 has instructions that operate on signed bitindicies. It doesn't
have instructions that operate on unsigned bitindicies. Unless someone
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 18:06 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 02:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 14:10 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Yes, on the generic it is int.
> >> The problem is in part that some architectures have bitop
> >> instructions with specific behav
On 11/10/2013 02:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> (adding linux-arch, and possible patch below)
>
> On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 14:10 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Yes, on the generic it is int.
>>
>> The problem is in part that some architectures have bitop
>> instructions with specific behavior.
>
> I t
(adding linux-arch, and possible patch below)
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 14:10 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes, on the generic it is int.
>
> The problem is in part that some architectures have bitop
> instructions with specific behavior.
I think that all bitop indices should be changed
to unsigne
Yes, on the generic it is int.
The problem is in part that some architectures have bitop instructions with
specific behavior.
Joe Perches wrote:
>On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 18:15 -0700, tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Commit-ID: 9b710506a03b01a9fdd83962912bc9d8237b82e8
>[]
>> x86, bitops: Chan
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 18:15 -0700, tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Commit-ID: 9b710506a03b01a9fdd83962912bc9d8237b82e8
[]
> x86, bitops: Change bitops to be native operand size
>
> Change the bitops operation to be naturally "long", i.e. 63 bits on
> the 64-bit kernel. Additional bugs are li
11 matches
Mail list logo
