| To: | Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Q: -mcpu= vs. -march= for VR41xx specific instructions |
| From: | Johannes Stezenbach <js@convergence.de> |
| Date: | Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:34:32 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <20020314181031.GC398@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Johannes Stezenbach <js@convergence.de>, Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| References: | <20020314172502.GA5365@convergence.de> <20020314181031.GC398@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.27i |
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 07:10:31PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > GCCFLAGS += -Wa,-march=vr4100 -mips2 -Wa,--trap > > > > This works, but I am unshure what the effects of the > > missing -mcpu switch are wrt the code generated by gcc. > > AFAICS the kernel still works, but is the generated > > code slower or subtly incorrect? > > I don't know what the compiler does then. I assume it defaults to > r3000 scheduling/opcodes. How bad is that compared to -mcpu=vr4100? > I would suggest the syntax > > .set march=vr4100 > > This is in my TODO list for gas, but don't hold your breath. OK. > The real fix is to use a newer compiler (gcc >= 3). :-) Not too long ago people here told me that gcc 3.x is still not ready for production use. Or is gcc-3.1-pre from CVS ready for prime time? Thanks, Johannes |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Q: -mcpu= vs. -march= for VR41xx specific instructions, Thiemo Seufer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | DECStation kernel boot failure, Guo-Rong Koh |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Q: -mcpu= vs. -march= for VR41xx specific instructions, Thiemo Seufer |
| Next by Thread: | DECStation kernel boot failure, Guo-Rong Koh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |