Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 05:35:35 +0200
To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: K6 & i686 ASM code
Message-ID: <19990520053534.B15277@cerebro.laendle>
Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
References: <37432DFD DOT 40490BB4 AT lycosmail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <37432DFD.40490BB4@lycosmail.com>; from Adam Schrotenboer on Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:32:45PM -0400
X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.7 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.09 19990221 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3) 
From: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:32:45PM -0400, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
> Can the K6(or -2 or III) use i686 ASM code??? Does it support all the
> same instructions??? I know that the scheduling probably won't be
> optimal, but I would also wonder if it may be better than i586 asm.

The answers are No, No and The scheduling is independent of the
instruction set. However, _scheduling_ for an i686 (i.e. -mpentiumpro)
might (or might not) improve the speed (and the programs will still work)
compared to scheudling with -mcpu=k6, so experiments in that direction
might be worthwhile.

--  
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |