scott: >>> According to the internets... the C3 purports to be a i686-class >>> processor >> Without CMOV or out-of-order execution, that seems a bit of a scam. > [snip] >> For gcc, "i686" implies the presence of the CMOV instruction, because, >> well, CMOV was introduced with the Intel 686 (aka Pentium Pro). > > What's in a name? GCC can define it as march=hamburger but that doesn't > make it so, it's just a name of convenience/convention.
Good luck with trying to get GCC to change their definition of "i686". > I assume > Intel's specs/contracts define what is/can be called an i686, so if they > say it's optional then the C3 is still a legit i686 even if CMOV support > is more common. Where do you get that idea from that CMOV is optional? Yes, there's a CPUID feature bit representing CMOV, but that's always set on the i686, its descendants, and compatible processors. Pre-Nehemiah C3s are not fully 686-compatible, simple as that. >> Btw, that was almost fifteen years ago. > > Well, if ya wanna make a fanless i686 (ish) CPU that runs on five (5) > watts or less, you gotta leave a few things out. Maybe so, but you can't then go out and demand that everyone else doesn't use those features. > This just means my legacy app is stuck on a 60watt beigebox instead C3-Nehemiah? C7? Atom? Andy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
