Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/18/03:31:41
Dave Love (d DOT love AT dl DOT ac DOT uk) writes:
>>>>>> "Martynas" == Martynas Kunigelis <algikun AT santaka DOT sc-uni DOT ktu DOT lt> writes:
>
> Martynas> Do you mean that pentium optimized code does not run on
> Martynas> 386/486?
>
> I don't know about that, but the `pgcc' hacks that I last saw actually
> were even at least somewhat specific to the GCC front end language
> (tough on Fortran, for instance). I've also been told that they are
> 586-specific and not appropriate (as optimizations) for 686.
686???
> For the brave, a snapshot of the current gcc development version,
> which has (different) [56]86 knowledge can be had from the GNU `win'32
> distribution at ftp.cygnus.com. [Other front ends than the C-based
> ones may not build against it straight off; G77 won't, anyhow.]
Why not include an option to build a program into a "super-executable"
with three copies of the code in it, and at the start a routine to
autodetect whether you have <586, 586, or 686 and branch to the right
code, which is properly optimised for that chip?
(Of course exe's would be up to three times as big, except for the 200k
startup-code and stub.)
--
.*. Where feelings are concerned, answers are rarely simple [GeneDeWeese]
-() < When I go to the theater, I always go straight to the "bag and mix"
`*' bulk candy section...because variety is the spice of life... [me]
Paul Derbyshire ao950 AT freenet DOT carleton DOT ca, http://chat.carleton.ca/~pderbysh
- Raw text -