On 2025-06-20 17:45, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
But I simply hate adding a disabled feature that depends on !X86_64;
x86_64 has a broad scope, and new CPU features are often intentionally
not enabled for 32-bit.
(X86_DISABLED_FEATURE_PCID is the only one before LASS)
More importantly, it is wrong.
The 32-bit build can depend on this feature not existing, therefore it SHOULD be listed as a disabled feature.
Ok, that was word salad. What I meant was that the original patch is
correct, and we SHOULD have this as a disabled feature.
The reason is that it reduces the need to explicitly test for 32/64 bits
for features that don't exist on 32 bits. When they are flagged as
disabled, they get filtered out *at compile time*.
-hpa
