On 2012-08-03 08:01, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value >>> 0x80000000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in >>> the code stream. >> >> So? Did you think the xadd will trap? > > No, but can we ignore the fact that we changed xsub -0x80000000, mem > to xadd -0x080000000, mem?
Yes, since it'll have the same effect on the bits. r~
