Thread View: net.bugs
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Hugh Redelmeier
Fri, 05 Jul 1985 12:34
8086 family CPU bug
Author: Hugh Redelmeier
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1985 12:34
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1985 12:34
31 lines
1921 bytes
1921 bytes
All 8086 manuals I have read say that shift instructions set
the flags to reflect the value of the result. All the chips
that I have tested (8086, 8088, 80186) do not set the flags
if the shift count is zero. I discovered this when the following
C code gave the wrong answer (under XENIX 2.1 -- not their
fault though) (this code is from memory, so it may be slightly
inaccurate):
main() {
register int i, j;
i = 0;
j = 1; j += 1; /* clear Z flag */
if (i << i) /* shift of 0 by 0 should set Z flag, but doesn't */
printf("WRONG!\n");
}
[Even if the predicate is written more cleanly as (i<<i != 0), the
compiler is smart enough to generate the same code. The use of i
instead of the literal 0 is to prevent compile-time evaluation.]
At the machine language level what is going on? The key
instruction is a shift with its count in a register. This
count is 0. The shift does not change the flags from their
previous value.
Cure(idealistic): INTEL et al should fix the chips (and give users new ones!)
Cure(imaginable): INTEL et al should revise the manuals; every compiler that
is affected should be updated (and users given new ones); every
program compiled using the previous compiler should be re-compiled;
every assembler program should be combed for this problem.
unCure(sad but true): users should be aware of this problem
Re: 8086 family CPU bug
Author: David Wright
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1985 20:10
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1985 20:10
18 lines
1680 bytes
1680 bytes
In article <1190@hcrvx1.UUCP> hugh@hcrvx1.UUCP (Hugh Redelmeier) writes: >All 8086 manuals I have read say that shift instructions set >the flags to reflect the value of the result. All the chips >that I have tested (8086, 8088, 80186) do not set the flags >if the shift count is zero. 1 - If I remember rightly, the 8086 (et al) Users Guides say that for count of 0 "the result is undefined" - in practice you seem to have discovered that the result is <do nothing> (not even set flags). I think it is very bad to have undefined results unnecessarily, but at least it's a "feature" not a bug (a "feature" is a bug that you documented .... ). I guess the C manual you're using didn't get round to documenting it - not Intel's fault if their "feature" wasn't recognised! 2 - I guess one reason Intel haven't bothered to fix this "feature" is that their PL/M-86 compiler isn't (usually) upset by such things, because it can almost always optimise out shift 0 anyway, and the C example you gave is pretty unlikely to appear in PL/M.
Re: 8086 family CPU bug
Author: Hugh Redelmeier
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1985 16:57
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1985 16:57
68 lines
3610 bytes
3610 bytes
In article <190@stl.UUCP> dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) writes:
>1 - If I remember rightly, the 8086 (et al) Users Guides say that for count of
>0 "the result is undefined" - in practice you seem to have discovered that the
>result is <do nothing> (not even set flags). I think it is very bad to have
>undefined results unnecessarily, but at least it's a "feature" not a bug
>(a "feature" is a bug that you documented .... ).
As I said in my original posting "All 8086 manuals I have read say...".
I guess I should have been more explicit. Here goes. I found the
various manuals were not easy to follow on this point. The discussion
is divided among several places. Here goes chapter and verse; these are
all the manuals I have acccess to (and the only ones the XENIX 2.1
C-compiler porters had access to too, I bet).
INTEL: MCS-86 User's Manual; 1978 January [marked preliminary]
4-16 under heading "SHIFTS":
"... and PF, SF, and ZF are set to reflect the result value."
under subheading "Mnemonic: SHL and SAL":
"Flags affected: CF, OF, PF, SF, ZF. AF undefined"
INTEL: 8086 Family User's Manual; 1979 October
2-35 (discussing arithmetic instructions and flags)
"- ZF (zero flag): If the result of an arithmetic or logical
operation is zero then ZF is set; otherwise ZF is cleared"
2-39 "Shift instructions affect the flags as follows:
... PF, SF and ZF are updated normally, as in logical
instructions."
2-65 says SAL/SAR do NOT affect ZF etc! But I know they do
affect ZF sometimes -- clearly this does not describe what
the chips do. Nor does this agree with the other quotes
from this same manual.
INTEL: iAPX 86, 88 User's Manual; 1981 July
same as previous manual EXCEPT:
2-65 SAR does set ZF. A documentation fix?
also in this manual:
2-8 "6) if ZF(the zero flag) is set, the result of the operation
is zero". This sentence seems to imply backwards causality!
Other flags are described in a similar way nearby.
INTEL: iAPX 88 Book; 1981 July
2-13 (discussing shifts) "... PF, SF, and ZF are set to reflect
the result value"
2-139 SAL affects ZF. This section does not say in what way the flag
is set (but then neither does the description of the ADD
instruction). Clearly 2-13 is the operative section.
<end of chapter-and-verse>
If newer manuals say something different, please tell me. I am also
curious about what the 286 actually does, since I understand that it
has fancy shifting hardware. (I just tried to find out, but after half
an hour, Xenix 3.0 has defeated me. I did learn that the 3.0 compiler
generates an explicit compare, so I had to try assembler. Unfortunately,
I couldn't get cc to accept as input a .s that it created.)
> I guess the C manual you're
>using didn't get round to documenting it - not Intel's fault if their "feature"
>wasn't recognised!
What is it that you feel the C manual should have said?
Hugh Redelmeier (416) 922-1937
{utzoo, ihnp4, decvax}!hcr!hugh
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads