Talk:Processor supplementary capability
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
Generalize tag
[edit]I've added the generalize tag to the article because it has a strong x86-family bias. It really should discuss other processor families in similar detail: what additional capabilities have been added to them; what flag mechanisms are available to detect those facilities; etc. Unfortunately, x86 is the only family I'm familiar enough with to work on. JulesH (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Justify terminology "supplementary"
[edit]I worked at Intel for circa 16 years, adding many instructions, but I never heard the term "processor supplementary capability" used. At Intel we called them "processor extensions" or "extension features". Come to think of it, I also worked at AMD and MIPS and Nvidia, and again never heard the term "supplementary" used, but just "extensions" and "features". Perhaps "processor supplementary capability" is used in some academic literature, but it might be useful to use the standard terminology used by many companies. And if this term is used by some companies, it might be useful indicating who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Glew (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)