Message-Id: <m0vb4AK-000S1fC@natacha.inti.edu.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
To: Elliott Oti <e DOT oti AT stud DOT warande DOT ruu DOT nl>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 15:43:17 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Intel MMX with DJGPP?

Eliot wrote:
> Patrick / Albert Fong wrote:
> > 
> > Will a later version of DJGPP/GCC support Intel's MMX instruction set?
> 
> This may be irrelevant, but NASM supports MMX instructions and is
> supposedly compatible with the *.o format. I'm no expert, but it seems
> to me MMX instructions will in most cases have to be inlined or in a 
> separate asm module in any case, even if the compiler does support it.
> 
Hmmmm ..... I guess that the Intel's MMX  is the major jump in the 
PCs in the last 7 or 8 years, until now M$ only promess support for 
inline MMX and decompilation of MMX instruction but from my point of 
view a C compiler that generates code using MMX will be MUCH MUCH 
BETTER than a silly compiler using only the old instruction set. And 
from my point of view the problem is that you'll need to extend the C 
to get all the power of the MMX architecture, and that's the real 
problem!, the data types used in MMX are a little different to the 
actual data types of the ANSI C.
  But again the first compiler supporting MMX will be the winner BY 
FAR if the rest only support inline MMX.

SET
--------------- 0 --------------------------------
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET).
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013