This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:03:29 -0700
Subject: Re: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question
References: <47D7F58E.2000602@oarcorp.com> <84fc9c000803120826y214e9150if3e0c6ca235fd988@mail.gmail.com> <47D80042.7050208@oarcorp.com> <de8d50360803120913m16177cbcp1cdca507038b921a@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:13:07AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Joel Sherrill
> <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >   10022a:       f2 0f 10 c0             movsd  %xmm0,%xmm0
> >
> >  Is there any way to skip these tests for particular HW features
> >  that are not present?  There are similar failures on the PowerPC
> >  target I use for reporting because it doesn't have Altivec.
> >
> >  Thanks.  Sorry for the bogus question.
> 
> These testcases are trying to check at runtime you have SSE2 or VMX support but
> it looks like you don't have signal support so they are failing.
> 

Why not to use cpuid () to check them?


H.J.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question
  - From: Joel Sherrill

References:
- gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question
  - From: Joel Sherrill
- Re: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question
  - From: Joel Sherrill
- Re: gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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