This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
- From: Michael S. Zick <mszick at goquest dot com>
- To: Michael Meissner <gcc-mail at the-meissners dot org>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:59:25 -0500
- Subject: Re: ppc64 floating point usage [was Re: PPC64 Compiler bug !!]
- References: <jakub@redhat.com> <03061316074500.01338@wolf686> <20030613223837.GA628@tiktok.the-meissners.org>
- Reply-to: mszick at goquest dot com
On Friday 13 June 2003 05:38 pm, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:07:45PM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> > On Friday 13 June 2003 04:02 pm, linas@austin.ibm.com wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:09:06PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > >
> > > Bird in hand vs. two in the bush. We have Alan Modra's patch now, we
> > > don't have an acceptable -mno-implicit-float patch.
> > >
> > > There is concern that Alan's patch will negatively impact performance
> > > of fp code. Is there a way to unambiguously resolve this issue, or
> > > at least resolve it to everyones satisfaction?
> >
> > A patch for a related issue just appeared for gas-arm-Linux and
> > gas-arm-NetBSD...
> > <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00494.html>
> > <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00497.html>
> >
> > Perhaps a similar route could be followed (I.E: -mfpu=none) to
> > support developers that need the "never, ever, for any reason"
> > touch the fp registers.
>
> Ummm, you already have that, it is spelled -msoft-float. I don't
> understand what a separate switch buys you.
>
My bad, I misunderstood the issue.
I thought someone pointed out that -msoft-float did not eleminate
all usage of float instructions (hardware OR software).
Mike