On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:39 AM, James Y Knight wrote:
>> I think you'll be a lot happier just modifying Psyco than making everyone
>> else in the world change their compiler flags.
>
> Aye, there's the rub. Nobody's happier modifying Psyc
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:39 AM, James Y Knight wrote:
> I think you'll be a lot happier just modifying Psyco than making everyone
> else in the world change their compiler flags.
Aye, there's the rub. Nobody's happier modifying Psyco. :) But that
just means people will gradually have to stop us
> Short history: new GCC 4.5.0 (released a month ago), when compiling with
> -O3, is adding MMX/SSE instructions that requires stack aligned to 16
> byte. This is wrong, since x86 ABI only requires stack aligned to 4 bytes.
I think this is debatable. It depends on the operating system also;
ultima
On May 12, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
On 12/05/10 15:39, James Y Knight wrote:
While assuming the stack is 16byte aligned is undeniably an
ABI-violation in GCC, at this point, it's surely simpler to just go
along: the new unofficial ABI for x86 is that the stack must always
be
left
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/10 15:39, James Y Knight wrote:
> While assuming the stack is 16byte aligned is undeniably an
> ABI-violation in GCC, at this point, it's surely simpler to just go
> along: the new unofficial ABI for x86 is that the stack must always be
> left
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/10 15:32, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Jesus Cea wrote:
>> Proposal: add "-fno-tree-vectorize" to compilation options for 2.7/3.2.
>
> Will this actually help? Won't there still be a problem if any extension
> module is compiled with GCC 4.5.0 witho
On May 12, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
Short history: new GCC 4.5.0 (released a month ago), when compiling
with
- -O3, is adding MMX/SSE instructions that requires stack aligned to
16
byte. This is wrong, since x86 ABI only requires stack aligned to 4
bytes.
If you compile EVERYTHI
Jesus Cea wrote:
> Proposal: add "-fno-tree-vectorize" to compilation options for 2.7/3.2.
Will this actually help? Won't there still be a problem if any extension
module is compiled with GCC 4.5.0 without that option, regardless of the
options used to build Python itself?
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick
