The x86 "flags" register, which holds condition codes and other processor status bits, has several reserved bits with fixed values, but these fixed values are not all the same. In particular, bit #1 (the twos place, considering the register as holding a number) always reads as 1, whereas bits #3 and #5 read as 0. According to Bit one of the Intel 8080's Flags register this has been true since the 8080 (which did not technically have a flags register, but did have a "push all the status bits onto the stack" instruction, that wrote these bits to memory as shown).

Normally, I expect reserved bits to be uniformly wired to either zero or one, with zero being more common. So, the question: Does anyone know of the original reason, whether documented, leaked, rumored, reverse-engineered, or otherwise, why the 8080's "push the status bits" instruction wrote one of the three reserved bits as 1 and the other two as 0?

  • 6
    There a chance that's Intel ended up with it being 1 rather than chose. The early ICs were laid out by hand and mistakes would happen or stuff couldn't be squeezed into tight spots. Guess it might just be one of those.
    – TonyM
    Feb 8 at 17:59
  • 2
    Intriguingly, bits 1 and 5 are used on the 8085, but not documented; bit 1 encodes the V flag (signed overflow). So the 8086 is backwards-compatible with the documented interface of the 8085, not its actual behaviour, which serves as a counter-argument to “the 8086 had to keep bit 1 set to 1 since the 8080 implemented it that way”. Feb 9 at 15:10
  • @StephenKitt Isn't the argument is still true? The bit was 1 on an 8080 and is one on the 8086. The V flag got put 'back' out again - or better back up :))
    – Raffzahn
    Feb 9 at 22:56
  • @Raffzahn I don’t think it is true. Saying that the bit has to be 1 on the 8086 because it was 1 on the 8080 relies on backwards-compatibility covering undocumented features as well as documented features; yet Intel’s story around the 8085 shows that that is not the case. The 8086 flags are backwards-compatible with the 8085’s, but only for documented flags. That means that undocumented flags don’t “count” in a backwards-compatibility claim; bit 1 could be 0 in 8086 flags without affecting Intel’s claims regarding either the 8080 or the 8085. Feb 10 at 8:34
  • The 8080 backwards-compatibility story is better if bit 1 is kept the same as it was on the 8080, but the way the flag was handled (both its implementation and its documentation) in the 8085 shows that it wasn’t necessary. Feb 10 at 8:35

1 Answer 1


Why is bit 1 of the x86 [e]flags register always set to 1, rather than 0?

Because of compatibility with the 8080/8085.

After all, the most important design goal for the 8086 was low effort in porting 8080 software. That's why there is the otherwise strange LAHF instruction, as it create the 8080's PSW. Having the 'unused' bits within the lower half of the flags register set the same way allowed the use of LAHF + PUSH AX to emulate an 8080's PUSH A as well POP AX + SAHF to emulate an 8080's POP A.

As so often, Michael Steil has some noted about further development form there.

  • 10
    That was not the question. The question was why did the 8080 set this bit to 1.
    – zwol
    Feb 8 at 19:26
  • 3
    @zwol Now, if that isn't the question, why did you put it the title? And accordingly in the text as well, as you're referring thruout to 8086 (or x86), mention 8080 only as a side note.
    – Raffzahn
    Feb 8 at 20:33
  • 2
    I thought it was clear at the time I wrote it, but I have made further clarifications.
    – zwol
    Feb 8 at 20:35
  • 2
    @zwol You totally changed the meaning of your question, as can be seen clearly by its history. Let's give Raffzahn a chance to adjust his answer, and take back your down-votes. Feb 9 at 9:01
  • 2
    @Raffzahn but the only question in the body refers to the 8080. I agree the question was poorly phrased initially (and the title was misleading), but the current version seems clear enough to me. (I’d understood the first version as also asking about the 8080, but I also understand why you thought it was about the 8086.) Feb 9 at 11:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.