From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Nov 15 10:03:22 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21760
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:03:22 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from conductor.synapse.net (conductor.synapse.net [199.84.54.18])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA21755
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:03:19 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from evanc@synapse.net)
Received: (qmail 5048 invoked from network); 15 Nov 1997 18:03:16 -0000
Received: from cello.synapse.net (199.84.54.81)
  by conductor.synapse.net with SMTP; 15 Nov 1997 18:03:16 -0000
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:03:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Evan Champion <evanc@synapse.net>
To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: bcopy via npx not in 686 version?
In-Reply-To: <199711151800.NAA04220@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971115130123.220R-100000@cello.synapse.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, John S. Dyson wrote:

> There isn't an advantage using the FPU for bcopys on P6 processors.  In
> fact, movs[*] instructions are optimized on a P6.

Ahh, ok.  It's good to know that Intel thought about optimise something in
the P6 while they were busy designing obnoxious bugs in to the P5 line :-) 

Evan