Re: default CPU target ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Matthias Klose wrote: >Marcus Brinkmann writes: >> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:05:13AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >> > IIRC the Hurd can be built for i586 only, so it could be used as >the >> > default target CPU as well. >> >> We only require a coprocessor, but anything < i586 doesn't make much

gcc-3.3_3.3.1ds3-1_sparc.changes ACCEPTED

2003-08-07 Thread Debian Installer
Accepted: cpp-3.3_3.3.1-1_sparc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.1-1_sparc.deb fastjar_3.3.1-1_sparc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.1-1_sparc.deb fixincludes_3.3.1-1_sparc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fixincludes_3.3.1-1_sparc.deb g++-3.3_3.3.1-1_sparc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.

[Bug target/11716] [mips] branch out of range when building fold-const.c

2003-08-07 Thread doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11716 --- Additional Comments From doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de 2003-08-07 22:10 --- Subject: Re: [mips] branch out of range when building fold-const.c rsandifo at redhat d

[Bug target/11716] [mips] branch out of range when building fold-const.c

2003-08-07 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11716 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/11716] [mips] branch out of range when building fold-const.c

2003-08-07 Thread rsandifo at redhat dot com
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11716 --- Additional Comments From rsandifo at redhat dot com 2003-08-07 18:24 --- Subject: Re: New: [mips] branch out of range when building fold-const.c "debian-gcc at lists

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2003-08-07 08:34:37 +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jan-Benedict Glaw writes: > > Would Debian accept two ix86 distributions? One i386 and, say, i[56]86? > > No, unless you can explain why you need to run KDE, eclipse and > openoffice on an

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Matthias Klose
Jan-Benedict Glaw writes: > Would Debian accept two ix86 distributions? One i386 and, say, i[56]86? No, unless you can explain why you need to run KDE, eclipse and openoffice on an i386. This has to be a subset due to bandwidth and disk limitations. > I'd even volunteer to rebuild all the package

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would Debian accept two ix86 distributions? One i386 and, say, i[56]86? Most developers probably would, if presented with a sound plan that makes that happen and has no downsides (except for the obvious one that ftp archives will need more space).

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You are wrong. There are two versions of atomicity.h, one for i486+, > > and the other for i386+ (at the time the other distributors released > > their compilers, there was only the i486+ version, and it was assumed > > to work for i386+, but didn'

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2003-08-07 07:58:01 +0200, Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Am I wrong or did we, "forced" because we wanted to be binary compatible > > to some major distributions, just follow others and doing opt

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am I wrong or did we, "forced" because we wanted to be binary compatible > to some major distributions, just follow others and doing optimization > just as they did? You are wrong. There are two versions of atomicity.h, one for i486+, and the other

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Wed, 2003-08-06 15:52:31 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jan-Benedict Glaw said: > >...and up to now, I haven't seen real hard numbers that show that > >optimizing for i486 does really make anything noticeable faster. From > > I've given such

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Wed, 2003-08-06 17:22:19 -0400, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Jan-Benedict Glaw writes: > > Someone is making statements without knowing the real situation. > Changing to hwmul ops in l

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2003-08-07 00:48:04 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 06:43:35AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-08-06 23:08:22 +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >

Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports

2003-08-07 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Thu, 2003-08-07 01:13:18 +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Marcus Brinkmann writes: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:05:13AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > IIRC the Hurd can be built for i586 only, so it could be used as the > > > default target