Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:34:37 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Tom ST Denis" <tstdenis3160 AT home DOT com>
Message-Id: <1190-Sun31Dec2000123437+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <nuy36.54098$59.15020373@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
	(tstdenis3160 AT home DOT com)
Subject: Re: Support for higher end cpus
References: <f_v36.53630$59 DOT 14770834 AT news3 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <92mb9j$soc$1 AT slb6 DOT atl DOT mindspring DOT net> <nuy36.54098$59 DOT 15020373 AT news3 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Tom ST Denis" <tstdenis3160 AT home DOT com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:20:35 GMT
> 
> But the optimizations the authors must have been thinking of
> when they did DJGPP for the i486 are not always what you want for an i686 or
> k6.  My point is that newer opts may have been missed.

GCC is constantly developed, and DJGPP gets the latest versions.  The
current version definitely has 686-specific support.  As for K6 or K7,
its support might be less efficient; I don't know.

But we definitely do NOT use a compiler whose optimization development
stopped at 486.