On Friday, 9 February 2018 10:09:03 PST Eric Lemanisser wrote:
> That is not my experience: https://godbolt.org/g/ZZG1mp
That's not a valid test because you forgot the -m32 switch. Disabling SSE2 on
64-bit is nonsensical.
Try this one instead: https://godbolt.org/g/C853Gx
As I said in the other
On Friday, 9 February 2018 08:36:59 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Qt is built with SSE2 by default since 5.3.0. Is there a reason for not
> > enabling by default SSE2 for application compilation ? If not I'll start
> > working on a change doing that.
>
> Because we didn't want to force that on us
That is not my experience: https://godbolt.org/g/ZZG1mp
Le ven. 9 févr. 2018 à 18:58, Marian Beermann a écrit :
> SSE et al are mostly helpful if you have code either using these
> instructions directly (assembly, intrinsics) or being written in a way
> that the optimizer can easily take advanta
SSE et al are mostly helpful if you have code either using these
instructions directly (assembly, intrinsics) or being written in a way
that the optimizer can easily take advantage of (see what Thiago wrote).
For general application code they generally do very little if anything
by themselves.
-M
On Friday, 9 February 2018 08:15:19 PST Eric Lemanisser wrote:
> Qt is built with SSE2 by default since 5.3.0. Is there a reason for not
> enabling by default SSE2 for application compilation ? If not I'll start
> working on a change doing that.
Because we didn't want to force that on users. It's
Qt is built with SSE2 by default since 5.3.0. Is there a reason for not
enabling by default SSE2 for application compilation ? If not I'll start
working on a change doing that.
Also, any plan migrating to SSE3 or SSSE3 ?
Eric Lemanissier
___
Interest mai
