Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5+ Years Late: LLVM's AMD Excavator Target Was Missing Two Features

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 5+ Years Late: LLVM's AMD Excavator Target Was Missing Two Features

    Phoronix: 5+ Years Late: LLVM's AMD Excavator Target Was Missing Two Features

    It took until 2020 for an Intel developer to land a patch providing support for two instructions supported by AMD "Excavator" CPUs but not exposed by the "bdver4" target...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...r4-Missing-Two

  • #2
    Intel pushing Bulldozer to make their own crap look better. LOL. Can they still be more pathetic?

    AMD should reply with a patch that makes the 80386 run Windows 95 better.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by eydee View Post
      Intel pushing Bulldozer to make their own crap look better. LOL. Can they still be more pathetic?

      AMD should reply with a patch that makes the 80386 run Windows 95 better.
      Okay...

      Comment


      • #4
        so amd only cares for gcc?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by loganj View Post
          so amd only cares for gcc?
          maybe 5+ ago. clang was less common. just remember it is just a few month ago that the Kernel can be compiled successfully with clang.

          Comment


          • #6
            the good guy meme would fit perfectly.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by eydee View Post
              Intel pushing Bulldozer to make their own crap look better. LOL. Can they still be more pathetic?

              AMD should reply with a patch that makes the 80386 run Windows 95 better.
              I cannot see any logic in your post, but it's probably my
              ​​fault. Or maybe you're 12 years old.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eydee View Post
                Intel pushing Bulldozer to make their own crap look better. LOL. Can they still be more pathetic?
                Take your meds.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post

                  maybe 5+ ago. clang was less common. just remember it is just a few month ago that the Kernel can be compiled successfully with clang.
                  I had developed a toy frontend for LLVM and also a tiny frontend for GCC. It's much more comfortable to use LLVM and it doesn't require to fork the whole jungle, also it doesn't require to work with obscure makefiles. Also, GCC impairs developer's freedom heavily. LLVM is the future of OSS compilers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Isn't rdrand buggy and they decided to disable it ? https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...isable-15h-16h

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X