Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > Am Sa., 1. Feb. 2020 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> >> Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: >> >> > On Feb 1, 2020, at 05:05, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Frankly, I think that it would be better if our Windows executables just >> >> moved to 64bit but that seems like the more complicated option yet. And >> >> 32bit systems kept around a whole lot longer even after processors >> >> became 64bit-capable because they tended to require less memory. >> > >> > You provided a lot of good information in your post, but the >> > conclusion was not entirely clear. >> > Are you suggesting requiring SSE2 at this time? >> >> Yes. It appears to get used anyway for 64bit executables, and it seems >> safe enough to demand it for 32bit executables. >> >> For SSE there would be the danger of libraries stomping over the >> registers that share memory with the FPU stack, but I think that SSE2 is >> not affected. >> >> -- >> David Kastrup >> > > Well, Arnold encountered the problem (iirc he will not be online > during the weekend) and there may several other older 32-bit OS > around. > What shoud those people do?
Nothing? I am currently proposing that we compile with -mfpmath=sse -msse2 as options which should shift arithmetic off to the SSE2 instruction set which doesn't work with 80-bit arithmetic. That would be a default way of compilation. -- David Kastrup
