[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Increasing minimum 'i386' processor



On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 21:29 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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.

Not by default on i386.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class.
                      - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette'

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: