On 6/22/22 07:22, Kalra, Ashish wrote: > As I replied previously on the same subject: Architectural implies > that it is defined in the APM and shouldn't change in such a way as > to not be backward compatible. I probably think the wording here > should be architecture independent or more precisely platform > independent. Yeah, arch-independent and non-architectural are quite different concepts. At Intel, at least, when someone says "not architectural" mean that the behavior is implementation-specific. That, combined with the model/family/stepping gave me the wrong impression about what was going on. Some more clarity would be greatly appreciated.
