Mail Archives: pgcc/1999/05/20/11:26:33
Henrik Berglund SdU <adb94hbd AT mds DOT mdh DOT se> wrote:
> On 19 May 1999, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>
> > What about gzip and kernel and zlib ASM code, should I not use gzip/zlib
ASM??,
> hmm is there any asm in gzip/zlib thought it´s suposed to be written in
> portable c-code only, is there asm code for all the different processors?
> inline asm?
Inline, no, I don't think so (it's in different .S files, like match.S), but
there is platform/CPU specific ASM(optional, also available in clean C).
> > and what about kernel??? I don't know of a choice as to whether or not to
use ASM
> > for that. Can EGCS or PGCC make as good or better code than the
hand-optimized
> > ASM?
> -mi686 -mi586 -mk6 are only switches that turn on specific scheduling and
> compiler optimisations for that processor.
True, but you still haven't really answered my q. I guess that I can't use
i686 ASM, but maybe i586 ASM for zlib. Or maybe just use -march=k6. But what's
better, -march=k6, or the i586 ASM. Is the hand-optimized code as good as what
can be produced by the compiler, or is that too much to look for?
For the kernel, it's even more of a q. I would once again assume I shouldn't
use i686 ASM, but then is there clean C code for the code in the ASM portions?
If so, how do I use that instead? Is it advantageous to use the C code,
compiled for K6, or to just use the 586 ASM code?
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henrik DOT Berglund AT mds DOT mdh DOT se
> http://www.mds.mdh.se/~adb94hbd/
>
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
- Raw text -