Andi Kleen wrote: > Nope. SSE3 != SSSE3. The additional S means Supplemential. > > It's probably because the few changes didn't justify a SSE4 OK, the problem is that the actual sse3 bit is misnamed. According to Intel's docs bit 0 of ECX is "sse", the kernel uses "pni". Too bad. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why ssse3?
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: Why ssse3?
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: Why ssse3?
- References:
- Why ssse3?
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: Why ssse3?
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Why ssse3?
- Prev by Date: Re: Mysterious RTC hangs on x86_64 - fixed, sort of
- Next by Date: Re: arch/i386/boot rewrite, and all the hard-coded video cards
- Previous by thread: Re: Why ssse3?
- Next by thread: Re: Why ssse3?
- Index(es):
 |