This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Branch hints on P4 and EM64T
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- To: <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,<binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:46:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: Branch hints on P4 and EM64T
I don't think it can cause any problems. But it doesn't do any good,
either.
>>> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 23.07.04 16:31:51 >>>
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:25:24PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> It should then be gcc that gets fixed. And I can't see why it used
this
I was told that branch hints might not be useful at all. Icc never
used
it in production. It was thought that it might be useful before chip
was made. But it didn't turn out that way.
> odd mechanism in the first place. Also, as I saw Jakub Jelinek also
> disagreed with your reverting of my original change. Jan
Gcc should be modified. But it doesn't mean that the new assembler
should break existing gcc just because it looks odd. Please show me
how it can cause problems on x86-64.
H.J.