home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: Speed: 68040 vs. 68060
- Date: 28 Feb 1996 08:13:16 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4h0vac$p7l@serpens.rhein.de>
- 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> <19960227.7AD21D0.10285@asd06-24.dial.xs4all.nl>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- jtv@xs4all.nl (Jeroen T. Vermeulen) writes:
-
- >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.
-
- Yes, it generates function calls instead.
-
- >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.
-
- Fortunately this is not applicable to floating point.
-
- Regards,
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-