Re: Why ssse3?

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]>

• References:
  • Why ssse3?
    • From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
  • Re: Why ssse3?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]