On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Michael Neuffer wrote:
>
> >This is not necessary. gcc 2.8 includes the pentium optimizations
> >from pgcc.
>
> All of it?
No not all, they took a stable subset.
Mike
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAI
Michael Neuffer wrote:
>This is not necessary. gcc 2.8 includes the pentium optimizations
>from pgcc.
All of it?
My impression from the pgcc FAQ at http://www.goof.com/ was that only
some optimizations (mostly instruction scheduling) will be taken from
pgcc. The rather active pgcc development
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >I don't think it does any optimization at all for pentium.
>
> Correct. Of course, there's the experimental pgcc (http://www.goof.com/,
> if anybody wants to look).
>
> I'd like to pack this up and stuff it into experimental, if I had a
> little more t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Where is the arch specification string used, i.e. what will break if we
> > change it to be "i386-linux" on intel systems?
>
> I'm not competent enough to answer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Where is the arch specification string used, i.e. what will break if we
> change it to be "i386-linux" on intel systems?
I'm not competent enough to answer this. Anything tightly integrated with
gcc, but is there
Rob Browning wrote:
>
> Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think it also chooses some instructions differently for a 486, and
> > these choices are also good on the pentium. That's why, when building
> > binaries for my use, I use -m486 but add flags which turn off the
> > align
Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it also chooses some instructions differently for a 486, and
> these choices are also good on the pentium. That's why, when building
> binaries for my use, I use -m486 but add flags which turn off the
> alignment.
Right, I had heard that thes
On 1 Jun 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> > a good middle ground.
>
> I think the only optimization gcc 2.7
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >
> > On May 31, Galen Hazelwood wrote
> > > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> > > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> > > a good middle ground.
> >
> >
On 1 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galen Hazelwood) wrote on 31.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > > > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > > > whi
Guy Maor wrote:
> I think the only optimization gcc 2.7.* does for i486 is instruction
> alignment. The Pentium has a better fetch unit so doesn't need any
> alignment (it never incurs a misfetch penalty) so optimizing for i486
> will at least give some code bloat.
I think it also chooses some in
Guy Maor wrote:
[gcc 2.7.2]
>I don't think it does any optimization at all for pentium.
Correct. Of course, there's the experimental pgcc (http://www.goof.com/,
if anybody wants to look).
I'd like to pack this up and stuff it into experimental, if I had a
little more time *sigh*.
--
Thomas Ko
Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> a good middle ground.
I think the only optimization gcc 2.7.* does for i486 is instruction
alignment. Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galen Hazelwood) wrote on 31.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > > whimper...)
> >
> > Sorry, but I couldn't resist :-) Wh
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On May 31, Galen Hazelwood wrote
> > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> > a good middle ground.
>
> If I remember right, configuring for pentium leaves an execut
On May 31, Galen Hazelwood wrote
> Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> a good middle ground.
If I remember right, configuring for pentium leaves an executable
that might not run on 386 or
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > whimper...)
>
> Sorry, but I couldn't resist :-) What are the reasons?
I don't know. That's why I whimper...
> If we make this policy, we sh
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > Next step: GNU's "configure" utility. I thought that we had agreed on
> > using
> > i386-unknown-linux
> > (and similar for the other architectures), but then I had just discovered
> > that GCC uses
> >
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> As I'm working on a new Policy I'm handling the request to include a
> policy for "correct architecture spec strings". However, I've discovered
> _several_ threads here on debian-devel without any (obvious) results.
>
> Is it correct
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 May 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > Is it correct, that we are currently working on ports to the following
> > platforms (the abbrevs should be the ones that dpkg is using in the file
> > names):
> > i386
> > alpha
> >
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Next step: GNU's "configure" utility. I thought that we had agreed on
> using
> i386-unknown-linux
> (and similar for the other architectures), but then I had just discovered
> that GCC uses
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.7.2.1/
>
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Is it correct, that we are currently working on ports to the following
> platforms (the abbrevs should be the ones that dpkg is using in the file
> names):
> i386
> alpha
> arm
> m68k
> powerpc
> sparc
> Are thes
Hi folks!
As I'm working on a new Policy I'm handling the request to include a
policy for "correct architecture spec strings". However, I've discovered
_several_ threads here on debian-devel without any (obvious) results.
Is it correct, that we are currently working on ports to the following
pl
23 matches
Mail list logo
