| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I guess gcc devs are careful when using the model numbers (Intel |
| 4 |
> lists 3 for Atoms, gcc uses only two so that may account for the |
| 5 |
> models I mentioned) but the chance of error is there. The -mno-xxx |
| 6 |
> flags would safeguard against it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I have one of the earliest Atom chips. Some people have a hard time |
| 9 |
believing this, but it's a 32-bit-only chip; a couple of lines from |
| 10 |
/proc/cpuinfo |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 @ 1.33GHz |
| 13 |
address sizes : 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Intel gives the CPU's specs at... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
http://ark.intel.com/products/35466/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z520-512K-Cache-1_33-GHz-533-MHz-FSB |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
...where it specifically says... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Intel 64 # No |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I want to make absolutely certain that "illegal instructions" are not |
| 24 |
compiled for it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 28 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives