This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Can I require binutils 2.17 or above for AVX support in gcc?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Ye, Joey" <joey dot ye at intel dot com>, "Guo, Xuepeng" <xuepeng dot guo at intel dot com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:41:31 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: RFC: Can I require binutils 2.17 or above for AVX support in gcc?
- References: <6dc9ffc80805241004j7184a092n110ab616e95a7eb3@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 24 May 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 2. Requiring binutils 2..17 or above, replace movd with
> %vmovq without adding a new pattern.
>
> Requiring binutils 2.17 or above also improves gcc code
> generation due to better linker. I certainly prefer #2. But I
> can live with #1.
As I said in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01216.html> I
think requiring a minimum version of binutils for all targets (except when
not using GNU binutils, on a whitelist of targets where non-GNU tools are
known to be usable or required) would be fine. There would be a configure
check that at least this version, or non-GNU tools where allowed, is in
use, and all the statements in install.texi about older versions for
particular targets would be removed.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com