From: Martynas Kunigelis <algikun AT santaka DOT sc-uni DOT ktu DOT lt>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: pentium
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:41:40 +0000
Organization: LITNET
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.95.970217133936.15118A-100000@santaka.sc-uni.ktu.lt>
References: <199702161216 DOT HAA10376 AT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: santaka.sc-uni.ktu.lt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <199702161216.HAA10376@delorie.com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp



On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> > how come there are not any optimizations for pentium???
> > pentium is already considered an old enough platform ...
> 
> The optimizations produced by the Pentium group are not considered
> "clean" enough by the FSF (they break other platforms), so they refuse
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you mean that pentium optimized code does not run on 386/486? I really
don't mind that.. BTW, does pentium-optimized code produced by other
compilers (e.g. Borland or Watcom) run on 386/486?
Or maybe you meant something else by 'other platforms'?

> to accept them into the official sources.  My policy, so far, has been
> to stick with the official sources whenever possible, to reduce the
> chance that a bug in gcc is my fault.
> 
> 


Martynas