Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:04:05 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: i386 and InterlockedIncrement inline asm
Message-ID: <20030125160405.GA20301@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030124214426 DOT 68083 DOT qmail AT web21414 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <20030124231438 DOT GL8500 AT redhat DOT com> <3E329A81 DOT 3040603 AT netscape DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E329A81.3040603@netscape.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 09:09:05AM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>Since we're on the subject, Chuck and I were discussing the floating
>point routines in newlib a few months back.  FWICT, we are currently
>using Software FPU emulation.  The reason we were discussing this was
>because we had noted how poorly sh performs when it does FP division
>(used by libtool when calculating the max number of arguments that can
>be passed to the command line).  NT seems to have a much better handle
>on this than does Win9X/ME, but it is still slower then true HW FPU.
>If we do decide to start cutting out earlier platforms, how about
>enabling Hardware FPU?  Surely this would provide a performance boost?

I played around with turning on hardware floating point a while
ago and never got the incantation right.  If someone knows how to do
this, I'm interested in hearing about it.

cgf