From: "Tom ST Denis" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Support for higher end cpus Lines: 27 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 01:29:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.156.37.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT home DOT net X-Trace: news3.rdc1.on.home.com 978226187 24.156.37.224 (Sat, 30 Dec 2000 17:29:47 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 17:29:47 PST Organization: Excite AT Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com I know (from my earlier post) that DJGPP can understand switches such as -march=k6 or -march=i686 but the code it produces doesn't seem to be any faster (substantially anyways) then -march=i486. The output code *is* different just not improved. My basis for this judgement is my compilation of Allegro and my updated Plush lib. I get about the same FPS in my Plush examples when I use march=k6 (on my Athlon) then I do with march=i486. Will there be any development for supporting the K7/PIII/PIV? It would make DJGPP (and it's GCC derivatives such as CYGWIN) jump way ahead of VC++ 6.0. If GCC supported these new cpus I bet alot of people would be happy! I know I would. For the most part I think just the way the code is rescheduled is the only thing the compiler *could* do. But often that makes a big difference. Other things such as MMX/3dNOW instructions could be provided by a libext.a or something that is optional for a DJGPP installation. I have no clue about compiler development or serious optimization tricks. I just use the compiler and write what I think is efficient algorithms... so I can't help develop this...wish I could.. Thanks, Tom