From: Paul Shirley Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: MMX Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 05:55:58 +0000 Organization: wot? me? Lines: 27 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <5g04af$pmd AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> Reply-To: Paul Shirley NNTP-Posting-Host: chocolat.foobar.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp In article , Peter Berdeklis writes >On 10 Mar 1997, Paul Derbyshire wrote: >> Peter Berdeklis (peter AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca) writes: >> > If these extensions to C are written they would likely be written in hand >> > coded/massaged inline asm. In that case the compiler doesn't need to know >> > anything about packing and parallel op's, just which registers are >> > invalid (eg. the whole FPU stack). >> >> In other words, the minimal MMX support would be just to add to inline asm >> the ability to specify "%MMX" as one of The Clobbered to mean the FPU >> registers. > >gcc's extended asm already has "f" as the specification for an FPU >register ("t" and "u" are for the top and second register of the FPU >stack). Since "f" does not specify an FPU register, I would assume that >putting it in the clobberred list would invalidate assumptions about any >FPU register. If this is the case, then the ability to provide minimal >support for the MMX already exists. You really need to support marking the cost of a MMX <-> FPU context switch ( 70 clocks! last time I heard it), make sure the compiler makes no state changes to the fpu and makes no use of FPU registers *between* MMX macro calls not just across them. --- Paul Shirley: shuffle chocolat before foobar for my real email address