4 ms·

If you want to be pedantic, how about "incorrectly translating code into assembly such that two statements that should be separated by a sequence point in the C

If you want to be pedantic, how about "incorrectly translating code into assembly such that two statements that should be separated by a sequence point in the C memory model can interfere with each other, but the implementations before this generation of Intel processor wouldn't reorder microcode execution such that it was actually a problem in practice".

eqvinox 2y ago
> statements that should be separated by a sequence point in the C memory model can interfere with each other, That also doesn't exist on x86 since it is a TSO platform. The other thing is that even in the extremely unlikely case that some new behavior in 13th/14th gen Intel CPUs is exposing a bug in either code or compiler that has just been lurking there for who knows long, and doesn't affect any other CPU at all… … with the way the world works, it'd still be a CPU bug, even if there was a document somewhere that says the CPU is right. x86 is shoved down the compatibility road so far, it just doesn't matter what some paper says if you break compat. (For user space at least, kernel is not quite there.)