On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:52:59PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > > I have seen this as well, using -O2 -march=athlon-xp.
> > > > The generated assembler tried to stuff -129 into a single byte.
> > >
> > > What about just trying -march=athlon? The only difference is the SSE
> > > support, which
> > > I have seen this as well, using -O2 -march=athlon-xp.
> > > The generated assembler tried to stuff -129 into a single byte.
> >
> > What about just trying -march=athlon? The only difference is the SSE
> > support, which is quite new and may have latent bugs anyway.
>
> I didn't try that, bu
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:31:20PM -0500, Bryan Liesner wrote:
> > I have seen this as well, using -O2 -march=athlon-xp.
> > The generated assembler tried to stuff -129 into a single byte.
>
> What about just trying -march=athlon? The only difference is
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:31:20PM -0500, Bryan Liesner wrote:
> I have seen this as well, using -O2 -march=athlon-xp.
> The generated assembler tried to stuff -129 into a single byte.
What about just trying -march=athlon? The only difference is the SSE
support, which is quite new and may have la
Bruce Cran wrote:
> I'm afraid you're wrong - the V2SI datatype and MMX functions
> automatically become available after -march=pentium2, while
> with other processor types you've got to explicitly add -mmmx.
> -msse is presumed with -march=pentium3 and up.
I'm afraid I'm not; I was talking strictl
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:49:13PM +, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:38:00AM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > I'm afraid you're wrong - the V2SI datatype and MMX functions automatically
> > become available after -march=pentium2, while with other processor types
> > you've got to
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:38:00AM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:51:55PM -0800, Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
> > Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Just a little question:
> > >
> > > Does -march=k6-2 implies -m3dnow? Or -march=pentiumpro implies -mmmx?
> >
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:51:55PM -0800, Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
>
> I understand it. Anyway, there is known problems by using -mmmx or
> -m3dnow on builworld/buildkernel? Well, I used allways march=pentiumpro
> on stable and now pentium2 on cur
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:51:55PM -0800, Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
> Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a little question:
> >
> > Does -march=k6-2 implies -m3dnow? Or -march=pentiumpro implies -mmmx?
> Pentium Pro doesn't support MMX; -march=pentiumpro (aka -march=i686) enables
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:49:47AM -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> This is fine and good, but make.conf appears to be hiding in 5.0
> (or at least in the various installs/cvsups I've encountered to date).
> What flags are accepted is a bit of a guessing game without a template in
> /etc/defaults (ye
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:51:55PM -0800, Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
>
> I'm afraid you're wrong - the V2SI datatype and MMX functions automatically
> become available after -march=pentium2, while with other processor types
> you've got to explicitly add
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:51:55PM -0800, Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
> Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a little question:
> >
> > Does -march=k6-2 implies -m3dnow? Or -march=pentiumpro implies -mmmx?
> Pentium Pro doesn't support MMX; -march=pentiumpro (aka -march=i686) enables
Nuno Teixeira wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a little question:
>
> Does -march=k6-2 implies -m3dnow? Or -march=pentiumpro implies -mmmx?
Pentium Pro doesn't support MMX; -march=pentiumpro (aka -march=i686) enables
compiling with main i686 instruction set, no MMX\SSE or whatever.
>
> I always thought
Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
Does -march=k6-2 implies -m3dnow? Or -march=pentiumpro implies -mmmx?
I always thought that when I use -march it will enable other
porcessor specific optimizations like mmx and 3dnow (if available).
IIRC, 166 and 180 Mhz P
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> Does -march=k6-2 implies -m3dnow? Or -march=pentiumpro implies -mmmx?
>
> I always thought that when I use -march it will enable other
> porcessor specific optimizations like mmx and 3dnow (if available).
IIRC, 166 and 180 Mhz PPros don't support MMX.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:06:54 +0100
Jens Rehsack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > It seems that with -O2 on ia32 (-march=k6-2 in my case), gcc will in
> > some cases generate short jumps to targets too far away for the offset
> > to fit in a single byte. A surefire way t
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> It seems that with -O2 on ia32 (-march=k6-2 in my case), gcc will in
> some cases generate short jumps to targets too far away for the offset
> to fit in a single byte. A surefire way to reproduce this is to build
> Mesa (or XFree86-4-libraries, w
Hi,
Just a little question:
Does -march=k6-2 implies -m3dnow? Or -march=pentiumpro implies -mmmx?
I always thought that when I use -march it will enable other
porcessor specific optimizations like mmx and 3dnow (if available).
Thanks,
Nuno Teixeira
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:06:35PM -0300, Fred Souza wrote:
> > I was recently a participant in a thread in another forum where all sorts
> > of people, including a well respected gcc developer, said categorically
> > that the latest (stock) gcc produces correct code with -O2 in all cases on
> > ia
> I was recently a participant in a thread in another forum where all sorts
> of people, including a well respected gcc developer, said categorically
> that the latest (stock) gcc produces correct code with -O2 in all cases on
> ia32. If it doesn't, the gcc folks would like a bug report.
I use -
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> It seems that with -O2 on ia32 (-march=k6-2 in my case), gcc will in
> some cases generate short jumps to targets too far away for the offset
> to fit in a single byte. A surefire way to reproduce this is to build
> Mesa (or XFree86-4-libraries, w
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> It seems that with -O2 on ia32 (-march=k6-2 in my case), gcc will in
> some cases generate short jumps to targets too far away for the offset
> to fit in a single byte. A surefire way to reproduce this is to build
> Mesa (or XFree86-4-libraries, w
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
It seems that with -O2 on ia32 (-march=k6-2 in my case), gcc will in
some cases generate short jumps to targets too far away for the offset
to fit in a single byte. A surefire way to reproduce this is to build
Mesa (or XFree86-4-libraries, which includes parts of Mesa).
It seems that with -O2 on ia32 (-march=k6-2 in my case), gcc will in
some cases generate short jumps to targets too far away for the offset
to fit in a single byte. A surefire way to reproduce this is to build
Mesa (or XFree86-4-libraries, which includes parts of Mesa).
Has anybody else run into
24 matches
Mail list logo
