On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 06:52:39PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>
> If hardware x86 decoders (i.e., Intel or AMD processors)
> get measurably faster with the new order, that would be
> a good reason to change it.
I was told that AMD processors had no preferences and Intel processors
preferred
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:00:30 -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 08:43:17AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:00:14 -0800 H. J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> > On x86, the order of prefix SEG_PREFIX, ADDR_PREFIX, DATA_PREFIX and
>> > LOCKREP_PREFIX isn't fixed. Currently, gas genera
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 08:43:17AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:00:14 -0800 H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > On x86, the order of prefix SEG_PREFIX, ADDR_PREFIX, DATA_PREFIX and
> > LOCKREP_PREFIX isn't fixed. Currently, gas generates
> >
> > LOCKREP_PREFIX ADDR_PREFIX DATA_PREFIX SEG_
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:00:14 -0800 H. J. Lu wrote:
> On x86, the order of prefix SEG_PREFIX, ADDR_PREFIX, DATA_PREFIX and
> LOCKREP_PREFIX isn't fixed. Currently, gas generates
>
> LOCKREP_PREFIX ADDR_PREFIX DATA_PREFIX SEG_PREFIX
>
> I will check in a patch:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutil
