As I remember it, a taken branch acts as a stop whereas a non-taken branch doesn't (so if no explicit stop bit is following a branch, then it must be OK for the entire group to be executed in parallel). I suppose it's possible the definition changed or that my (admittedly bad) memory is playing tricks on me. ;-) --david On 4/27/07, Christian Kandeler <christian.kandeler@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hello, in the definition of the BRL_COND_FSYS_BUBBLE_DOWN macro in arch/ia64/kernel/gate.S, shouldn't there be a stop bit after the brl.cond instruction? According to the Intel specs, the current definition (which has no stop bit) triggers undefined behavior. Regards, Christian Kandeler - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- Mosberger Consulting LLC, http://www.mosberger-consulting.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|