Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20180709145848.GA21771%panix.com@localhost>,
Thor Lancelot Simon  <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> 
>> The C11 standard could indeed use consistent wording. In one place
>> "correctly aligned" in other alignment "restrictions" and
>> "requirements". None of these terms is marked as a keyword or term and I
>> read them in the context of the document as the same phenomenon (I
>> haven't found a different interpretation of this in the wild).
>
>Right, but, architecturally, x86 doesn't have these "restrictions" or
>"requirements".  Not for correctness, not with the overwhelming majority
>of integer instructions.  Only (sometimes) for performance.

Unless you change one bit in the PSL and then the above is wrong:

#define PSL_AC          0x00040000      /* alignment check flag */

christos