Originally posted by curaga
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GCC Developers Look At Dropping i386 Support
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by ChrisXY View PostThe main optimizations on the indermediate code should be agnostic to the programming language and to the architecture but I guess in practice a compiler will do optimizations for the architecture and probably even from the programming language's specification, if there is something to optimize (for example for bulldozer you could maybe use the knowledge that it has more integer units than floating point units).Originally posted by curaga View PostOnly part of the improvements go towards new extensions like vectorizing. Part is the good old, "how do we make this specific combination of instructions faster", via better inlining, better ordering of instructions, or a number of other ways.
Didn't knew compilers were so modular like this.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostSo, you are actually saying that, today's work on a compiler will benefit compiling and running on a CPU that was released 30 years ago? I find that really hard to believe.
Please note: I'm not an expert in *any* of this. Just finding it unbelievable mkay...
The main optimizations on the indermediate code should be agnostic to the programming language and to the architecture but I guess in practice a compiler will do optimizations for the architecture and probably even from the programming language's specification, if there is something to optimize (for example for bulldozer you could maybe use the knowledge that it has more integer units than floating point units).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostSo, you are actually saying that, today's work on a compiler will benefit compiling and running on a CPU that was released 30 years ago? I find that really hard to believe.
Please note: I'm not an expert in *any* of this. Just finding it unbelievable mkay...
Only part of the improvements go towards new extensions like vectorizing. Part is the good old, "how do we make this specific combination of instructions faster", via better inlining, better ordering of instructions, or a number of other ways.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ryszardzonk View Postway i see it is that from 1991 till 2012 only 21 years have passed
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostThat's _exactly_ why you need the best compiler tech!
The slower your cpu, the better your compiler needs to be to get the same speed.
Please note: I'm not an expert in *any* of this. Just finding it unbelievable mkay...
Leave a comment:
-
Dropping 386 is completely fine.
This quote though:
If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology? Seriously...
The slower your cpu, the better your compiler needs to be to get the same speed.
Leave a comment:
-
overal all those recent changes are probably good if it means that actual more time is spend by developers coding new stuff not getting more time on the coffe breaks cause they will now have more time on their hands ^^ actually even more coffe breaks is good if during that time they get think of the best way to code afterwards so kinda win-win
btw
"If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology? Seriously..." way i see it is that from 1991 till 2012 only 21 years have passed, so giving that 30 years statement is true than why in the world would any one want to develop a system in 1991 for the 10 years old platform any way in the first place
still was it really all that much work?
Leave a comment:
-
GCC Developers Look At Dropping i386 Support
Phoronix: GCC Developers Look At Dropping i386 Support
Now that the Linux kernel has dropped support for old Intel 386 CPUs, GCC developers are also considering the removal of i386 support from their compiler...
Tags: None
Leave a comment: