X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4BA5AAA3.5060606@slittle.com> References: <4BA452E4 DOT 7050600 AT slittle DOT com> <4BA4E1B2 DOT 3020507 AT gmail DOT com> <4BA54492 DOT 8050903 AT slittle DOT com> <416096c61003202058s40c2f423p2fff76df652981f5 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4BA5AAA3 DOT 5060606 AT slittle DOT com> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:45:53 +0000 Message-ID: <416096c61003202345j5a412a62s48b61292a9192f21@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Cygwin vs Via C3: nothing happens, no output From: Andy Koppe To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com scott: >>> According to the internets... the C3 purports to be a i686-class >>> processor >> Without CMOV or out-of-order execution, that seems a bit of a scam. > [snip] >> For gcc, "i686" implies the presence of the CMOV instruction, because, >> well, CMOV was introduced with the Intel 686 (aka Pentium Pro). > > What's in a name? GCC can define it as march=hamburger but that doesn't > make it so, it's just a name of convenience/convention. Good luck with trying to get GCC to change their definition of "i686". > I assume > Intel's specs/contracts define what is/can be called an i686, so if they > say it's optional then the C3 is still a legit i686 even if CMOV support > is more common. Where do you get that idea from that CMOV is optional? Yes, there's a CPUID feature bit representing CMOV, but that's always set on the i686, its descendants, and compatible processors. Pre-Nehemiah C3s are not fully 686-compatible, simple as that. >> Btw, that was almost fifteen years ago. > > Well, if ya wanna make a fanless i686 (ish) CPU that runs on five (5) > watts or less, you gotta leave a few things out. Maybe so, but you can't then go out and demand that everyone else doesn't use those features. > This just means my legacy app is stuck on a 60watt beigebox instead C3-Nehemiah? C7? Atom? Andy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple