From:	"David Jonsson" <David DOT Jonsson AT ellemtel DOT se>
To:	<pgcc AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Intel/Cygnus
Date:	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:27:39 +0100
Message-ID:	<000f01be6632$02e96240$3bd16482@ellemtel.se>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
In-Reply-To:	<36DD6D94.79AFEC8F@mitre.org>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Importance:	Normal
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id GAA00964
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com

This is far from trivial. The C syntax need to be abandoned if the optimization is to be transparent from the programmer, see SWAR http://shay.ecn.purdue.edu/~swar/

Another approach is to use a MACRO like addition to ordinary compilers. This is what Apple has done with AltiVec wich is more promising than MMX or KNI/SSI, http://developer.apple.com/hardware/altivec/model.html

How could INTEL help Cygnus? Where did you read that?

The instruction set for KNI is available at http://www.sandpile.org/ What more does a compilerbuilder need?

David

 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Philip Long[SMTP:PLONG AT MITRE DOT ORG]
> > Sent: 	Wednesday, March 03, 1999 6:12:52 PM
> > To: 	'pgcc AT delorie DOT com'
> > Subject: 	Intel/Cygnus
> > Auto forwarded by a Rule
> > 
>     I read a news story a while back stating that Intel was going to
> help cygnus with pentium MMX/KNI etc. optimizing compilers.
> 
>     Is that for egcs?  Does it have any relation to the pgcc patch.  For
> that matter, why isn't pgcc merged into the egcs tree anyway?
> 

- Raw text -