| 1 |
On 1/12/06, John Myers <electronerd@×××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 12 January 2006 18:45, Tom Smith wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Well, if they're /not/ mutually exclusive, another question that comes |
| 4 |
> > up is... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > If a program is compiled with sse or sse2 support on a Pentium II, will |
| 7 |
> > the program run slower than it otherwise would? (Some of the programs I |
| 8 |
> > have are compiled and then distributed to servers with different |
| 9 |
> > CPUs--P-IIs and P-IVs, mainly.) |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If a program uses an instruction that the processor doesn't support, the |
| 13 |
> program will be sent SIGILL, the default action of which is to terminate |
| 14 |
> immediately. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Are you absolutely positive of that? I *thought* (would have thought) |
| 17 |
compilers these days would compile in conditional use of such |
| 18 |
instructions? That way if large blocks could benefit from these new |
| 19 |
instructions, they would use them, otherwise fall back to a common set |
| 20 |
of instructions. Of course this wouldn't be very beneficial for small |
| 21 |
sections of code. I've been wondering about this for quite some time |
| 22 |
though, but never bothered to investigate. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> -- |
| 25 |
> # |
| 26 |
> # electronerd, the electronerdian from electronerdia |
| 27 |
> # |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives