This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [3.1] Re: RFH PR 5877 (sse comparisons)

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "rth at cygnus dot com" <rth at cygnus dot com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:06:17 -0700
Subject: Re: [3.1] Re: RFH PR 5877 (sse comparisons)
References: <20020309163708.N2434@devserv.devel.redhat.com><20020314114647.GT16922@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><20020429125516.GB25342@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><264370000.1020091236@gandalf.codesourcery.com><20020429145306.GC2602@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>



--On Monday, April 29, 2002 04:53:06 PM +0200 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> 
wrote:

>> > Mark: I would like to see this patch in the branch.  It can be
>> > clasified as regression as gcc fails to build spec with
>> > -march=pentium4, even when the -march=pentium4 was missing in 3.0
>>
>> Would you explain this in more detail?  I don't understand this
>> paragraph.
>
> 3.0 didn't have -march=pentium4.  This bug reproduces only with SSE
> enabled so you need to enable pentium4 or athlon-xp.  So in strict sense
> it is not regression, but still people who will configure this as default
> won't be able to compile code they did before.

OK, that makes sense.

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- [3.1] Re: RFH PR 5877 (sse comparisons)
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [3.1] Re: RFH PR 5877 (sse comparisons)
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [3.1] Re: RFH PR 5877 (sse comparisons)
  - From: Jan Hubicka

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]