Re: Increasing minimum 'i386' processor
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:36:43PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> So far as I'm aware, none of the above will be generated directly by
> compilers (though they may be available through 'intrinsics'). So it
> may be that there is little to be gained by moving to 586-class as a
> minimum. If that is so, we should instead think forward to 686-class
> with CMOV as a minimum for wheezy + 1. Use of CMOV instructions is an
> important optimisation and they *are* generated directly by compilers.
And I think gcc already generates cmov instructions.