> I think it may be needed that we add -mcpu=c3 for gcc, which generates
> i686 without cmov instruction.
You want i486 scheduling for the C3 from testing so far. I've been talking
to VIA about releasing all the optimisation info
Alan
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 02:39:06AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:39:43 -0500 (EST),
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > > >GCC 3.2 still uses CMOVE instructions on -march=i686.
> > > >
> > > >On the other hand:
> > > > {"c3", PROCESSOR_I486, PTA_MMX | PTA_3DNOW},
> > >
At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:39:43 -0500 (EST),
Alan Cox wrote:
> > >GCC 3.2 still uses CMOVE instructions on -march=i686.
> > >
> > >On the other hand:
> > > {"c3", PROCESSOR_I486, PTA_MMX | PTA_3DNOW},
> > >GCC disagrees with you that the C3 is an i686.
>
> gcc uses i486 schedu
> >GCC 3.2 still uses CMOVE instructions on -march=i686.
> >
> >On the other hand:
> > {"c3", PROCESSOR_I486, PTA_MMX | PTA_3DNOW},
> >GCC disagrees with you that the C3 is an i686.
gcc uses i486 scheduling because that gives best performance
The situation is as follows
g
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:29:03AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
This libc ld.so special handling for hardware capability is used by
only MMX currently. We expand it not only for MMX but also CMOV.
MMX, intel's multi media extension, is also same circumstance that
both Pentium (i586) and Pentium
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 09:39:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At 16 Jan 2003 18:38:07 +,
> Philip Blundell wrote:
> > So, per our IRC discussion this afternoon, I think the current plan for
> > this is to have ld.so treat CMOV as an optional extension, similar to
> > how MMX is handled. In
Hi Jeff,
At Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:14:30 -0800,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 09:39:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > We debian-glibc team plan to prepare cmov-aware libc6.
>
> Sorry I havent been around much, been busy with school. Does this mean
> we now have numbers that sup
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 09:39:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> We debian-glibc team plan to prepare cmov-aware libc6.
Sorry I havent been around much, been busy with school. Does this mean
we now have numbers that support the generation of optimised libraries?
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
At 16 Jan 2003 18:38:07 +,
Philip Blundell wrote:
> So, per our IRC discussion this afternoon, I think the current plan for
> this is to have ld.so treat CMOV as an optional extension, similar to
> how MMX is handled. In other words:
>
> - Add CMOV to HWCAP_IMPORTANT in glibc.
>
> - Ask th
In chiark.mail.debian.devel, you wrote:
>Which kernel version do you check? I couldn't find such code...
>Resolving in the kernel is very clear for me, without downgrading all
>i686 binaries performance...
The kernel will put a cmov flag in /proc/cpuinfo if the CPU has a cmov
instruction, which
So, per our IRC discussion this afternoon, I think the current plan for
this is to have ld.so treat CMOV as an optional extension, similar to
how MMX is handled. In other words:
- Add CMOV to HWCAP_IMPORTANT in glibc.
- Ask the maintainers of openssl and any other affected packages to put
thei
GOTO Masanori schrieb:
> At Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:50 +,
> David Goodenough wrote:
>
>>On Monday 13 January 2003 10:44, Christoph Martin wrote:
>>
>>>David Goodenough schrieb:
>>>
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 14:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:40PM +00
At Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:50 +,
David Goodenough wrote:
>
> On Monday 13 January 2003 10:44, Christoph Martin wrote:
> > David Goodenough schrieb:
> > > On Tuesday 05 November 2002 14:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >>On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:40PM +, David Goodenough wrote:
> > >>>On
On Monday 13 January 2003 10:44, Christoph Martin wrote:
> David Goodenough schrieb:
> > On Tuesday 05 November 2002 14:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >>On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:40PM +, David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday 05 November 2002 13:04, Christoph Martin wrote:
> Am Die, 20
David Goodenough schrieb:
> On Tuesday 05 November 2002 14:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:40PM +, David Goodenough wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday 05 November 2002 13:04, Christoph Martin wrote:
>>>
Am Die, 2002-11-05 um 01.34 schrieb GOTO Masanori:
>At M
Hi gcc-maintainer,
do you know anything about a fix, so that gcc does not cmov code with
the -mcpu=i686 option?
Christoph
--- Begin Message ---
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 13:04, Christoph Martin wrote:
> Am Die, 2002-11-05 um 01.34 schrieb GOTO Masanori:
> > At Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:07:56 +0100,
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
