From: Tudor <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: MMX
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 12:30:30 -0800
Organization: Communications Accesibles Montreal
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <33207AE6.6641@cam.org>
References: <c=GB%a=_%p=Indigo_Active_Vi%l=CRIANLARICH-970304101819Z-27 AT crianlarich DOT Indigo> <331C2A2C DOT 52DD AT rpi DOT edu>
Reply-To: tudor AT cam DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Host: dynamicppp-242.hip.cam.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Brian Osman wrote:
> Anyways, even at Intel now they don't have compilers really. Given the
> incredibly complex nature of MMX code, anything developed now will have
> to be done by hand, in assembly. 
Yes, of course. I think (but I could be wrong) that NASM supports MMX
instructions.So you could use MMX with DJGPP if you use NASM.

> DJGPP is a great compiler, but I don't even see the big guys
> incorporating
> any kind of MMX support worth having in the near future.
Well, DJGPP may be the gratest compiler ever, but it is just a port of
GCC to MsDog. So if GCC will support MMX, so will DJGPP.
I don't know if DJ would incorporate MMX support by himself (before GCC
supports it, that is).
> Brian

-- 
tudor 'at' cam 'dot' org
http://www.cam.org/~tudor
'This is Scott Nudds of the Borg. C is irrelevant.'