You can build a huge number of a continuum of possible designs implementing a radix-16 SRT divider algorithm, differing only in the way quotient digit selection is done, and they would all work. That's the nature of iterative numeric methods; they tend towards convergence. How can you possibly know that the particular digit selection method used by Penryn would fail Russinoff's revised proof criteria? "Undoubtly" is a completely unjustified word!
Seems that you didnt catch the paper s importance..
What is proved is that although radix16 SRT works there is cases
where it is simply unable to yield a digit selection , i.e , the underlying
function of digit selection , whatever the solution choosed in your
infinite continum , does not systematicaly exist.
Only a radix-8 SRT has a systematic digit selection function existence.
In summary, I would take your alarmist statements as FUD, trumped up by a person with a poor understanding of how formal proof methods are applicable, in an attempt to cast doubt on a perfectly fine piece of engineering, for no better reason than it competes with AMD's. I've seen it from you before, in threads about transactional memory, in threads about hardware multithreading implementations, in threads about IPC (tell me again what "constant IPC" means!), in this very thread about clock mesh technology. You type up a whole bunch of authoritative-sounding technical language, but when it's parsed through or when someone asks a pointed question, it becomes clear that you don't actually know what you're talking about. I could continue at length about how revolted I am at intellectual dishonesty of this magnitude, but I think I would violate forum rules if I did.
Your summary is quite long and has no value other perhaps
than a self exemple of what it is supposed to denounce..
You simply did browse in my posts to see what are my opinions
and usuals tenets and now pretend that it s a long time that
you re noticing my posts in this site....
No, we cannot. Again, Russinoff's statement only applies to a "hardware divider based on these results". There's no evidence that Intel designed the Penryn divider based on these results. I'm not even sure the time window would have allowed it. Penryn taped out, in, what, 2006? The design work must have been started at least 2 years before that.
His statements apply more precisely , if you had really took attention ,
to radix-16 SRT hardware dividers when used for square roots extraction ,
not when performing divisions.
Intel did use the knowledge of the time , at wich such flaw wasnt
known , moreover , they did also use their radix-16 hardware divider
to compute square roots...