gcc 4.3.0 i386 default question

[Joel Sherrill]

H.J. Lu wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>     
We have POSIX signals but since this is embedded, we
expect people to compile their code properly to run on the
target hardware. So an illegal instruction isn't mapped
to POSIX sigill but to a fatal OS exception.
>
> Why not to use cpuid () to check them?
>
>
>   
I don't even see a GNU/Linux man page for this one. Is it
standard? Could it portably be used to avoid Altivec also?

Since we are talking 100s of tests, it seems like it would be
easiest to avoid them in the scripts. I just don't know how
to do that.

--joel