I was going to suggest a reorganization of the x86_64/32? because its a mess , but I was waiting until after MPIR-1.0.0 was release.
Do we want to change now or wait till after? On Saturday 14 March 2009 18:02:14 Bill Hart wrote: > I think we should have 64 bit amd's identify as amd64 not x86_64, then > use i786 and/or x86_64 to identify these broken chips. > > As for p4mmxsse2, the current configure.in seems to get around this by > assuming all p4's support sse2. Not sure if that is actually true. So > that is probably broken. sse2 was introduced with p4 , so they all have it > > Bill. > > 2009/3/14 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > > Are you sure about that: > > > > case $host in > > x86_64-*-* | i786-*-*) > > path_64="x86_64/amd64 x86_64" ;; > > k10-*-*) > > path_64="x86_64/amd64/k10 x86_64/amd64 x86_64" ;; > > nocona-*-* | core2-*-*) > > <<------------------------------------- > > path_64="x86_64/core2 x86_64" ;; > > <<------------------------------------- > > esac > > > > > > Seems to use the core2 code. > > > > Bill. > > > > 2009/3/14 Jason Moxham <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> On Saturday 14 March 2009 17:41:58 Jason Moxham wrote: > >>> Early Intel CPUs with Intel 64 lacked LAHF and SAHF instructions > >>> available in AMD64 until introduction of Pentium 4 G1 step in December > >>> 2005. LAHF and SAHF are load and store instructions, respectively, for > >>> certain status flags. These instructions are used for virtualization > >>> and floating-point condition handling. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'll find out model numbers soon > >> > >> No need for MPIR-1.0.0 , all 64bit Pentium's default to nonoca which > >> leads to a generic C build. > >> > >>> On Saturday 14 March 2009 17:20:25 Gonzalo Tornaria wrote: > >>> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Jason Moxham > >>> > <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > I pretty sure all core2 cpus have lahf,sahf , it's just some > >>> > > Pentium D dont have it . You can test the lahf_lm feature bit in > >>> > > cpuid to see if it's got it > >>> > > >>> > Tested in: > >>> > > >>> > My laptop: model 6 / family 15 (core 2 duo T5300). > >>> > My desktop is family 15 / model 6 (pentium D 930). > >>> > > >>> > The "lahf_lm" feature is present in both according to /proc/cpuinfo. > >>> > > >>> > Note that the laptop is "low end" core 2 (in the sense it has no VT > >>> > extensions). The pentium D is "high end" (in the sense it has VT > >>> > extensions --- low end would be pentium D 8xx). Maybe that makes a > >>> > difference? > >>> > > >>> > OTOH, the kvm 64 bit virtual cpu (kvm 72) doesn't seem to know about > >>> > the "lahf_lm" (meaning, it won't report it in cpuid, even if the host > >>> > processor has it. I assume the instructions would work anyway.) > >>> > > >>> > Gonzalo > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
