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] | |
Hi, I checked in a binutils patch to allow 64bit operands on vmovd: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-05/msg00257.html I am checking this patch into AVX branch. Joey, Xuepeng, please make sure that you have the latest binutils. Thanks. H.J. -- On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: > 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 > -- H.J.
Attachment:
d.txt
Description: Text document
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |