From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261210AbVFOQae (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261211AbVFOQae (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:34 -0400 Received: from pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl ([153.19.208.7]:42510 "EHLO pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261210AbVFOQa1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:29:56 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: "Richard B. Johnson" Cc: 7eggert@gmx.de, Gene Heskett , cutaway@bellsouth.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: .../asm-i386/bitops.h performance improvements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4fB8l-73q-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <4fF2j-1Lo-19@gated-at.bofh.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > Well the __documented__ '486 LEA instruction doesn't > even allow the double-register indirect. It's just > > LEA r16,m > LEA r32,m > > ... repeated twice > > Page 26-190, Intel486(tm) Microprocessor Programmer's Reference > Manual. ISBN 1-55512-195-4. The instruction may have been one > of those "immature features", read broken. And "m" is presumably described in details elsewhere as the semantics is common for all instructions involving address calculation. There is no point in repeating the lengthy explanation for every instruction, is it? Or would you prefer having each possible register and/or value of constant arguments described for every instruction separately? Maciej