Message-ID: <36FAADBC.68C50195@lycosmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:42:20 -0500
From: Adam Schrotenboer <ajschrotenboer AT lycosmail DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: AMDK6/ PPro instructions
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 9903121414460 DOT 12114-100000 AT legolas DOT mdh DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com

What if it is not a q about necessarily compiling w/ -march=i686, but rather one of
using asm code that was written/optimized for the 686?

For example, I have a k6-2 400, and am considering compiling zlib w/ the 686 asm
code. But I can't do that if there are opcodes in it that are not supported by my
CPU.

So, I guess that this may be a very valid q, or at least if rephrased somewhat.

Henrik Berglund SdU wrote:

> On 11 Mar 1999, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
> > As I said, I'm not sure. Pitty on AMD that they are unable to create a
> > reasonable cpu ;)
> >
> > Until somebody corrects me I take it for granted that -march=pentiumpro
> > programs won't run on amd-k6 (Mark: isn't that a question for the faq ;?)
>
> I can test it.
> but i can't see why you would want to compile with -march=pentiumpro instead of
> -march=k6 or -march=amdk6 dependign on if its a snapshot pgcc or not.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henrik DOT Berglund AT mds DOT mdh DOT se
> http://www.mds.mdh.se/~adb94hbd/