home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: surfnet.nl!sun4nl!xs4all!usenet
- From: jtv@xs4all.nl (Jeroen T. Vermeulen)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: Speed: 68040 vs. 68060
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 18:06:20
- Organization: Leiden University, Mathematics & Computer Science, The Netherlands
- Message-ID: <19960227.7AD21D0.10285@asd06-24.dial.xs4all.nl>
- References: <4foi00$60t@gondor.sdsu.edu> <3125E74D.3390@gih.no> <19960223.425E10.10CBD@an100.du.pipex.com> <19960225.7AF9790.E534@asd10-22.dial.xs4all.nl> <19960226.477570.1832@an174.du.pipex.com> <4grotj$8q3@serpens.rhein.de> <19960226.7B42F98.E8D9@asd06-03.dial.xs4all.nl> <4gss3v$atg@serpens.rhein.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: asd06-24.dial.xs4all.nl
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
- X-NewsSoftware: GRn 2.1 Feb 19, 1994
-
-
- In article <4gss3v$atg@serpens.rhein.de> mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
-
- > >AFAIK gcc inlines the emulation code for unimplemented instructions
- >
- > It doesn't.
-
- In that case it would still trap those instructions, and indeed cause a big
- performance hit for "unlucky" instruction mixes.
-
- But are you quite sure that gcc doesn't inline them? The manual says that code
- generated with the -m68040 option avoids the unimplemented instructions. That
- could stil mean that they are replaced by function calls, but OTOH gcc does know
- how to rewrite eg. constant divisions into (inline) sequences of faster
- instructions.
-
-
- > Michael van Elst
- >
- > Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- > "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-
- --
- ============================================================================
- # Jeroen T. Vermeulen \"How are we doing kid?"/ Yes, we use Amigas. #
- #--- jtv@xs4all.nl ---\"Oh, same as always."/-- ... --#
- #jvermeul@wi.leidenuniv.nl \ "That bad, huh?" / Got a problem with that? #
-