https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Anatol from comment #6)
> > I don't believe compiler needs to do all that.
>
> I might miss something, could you please share why?
>
> The check for FXSAVE can be a compile time: if compiled for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #6 from Anatol ---
> I don't believe compiler needs to do all that.
I might miss something, could you please share why?
The check for FXSAVE can be a compile time: if compiled for Pentium II tune or
later then use FXSAVE otherwise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Anatol from comment #4)
> > you need to save the complete vector state
>
> It is a good point. Would it make sense for compiler to do it? Instead of
> forcing users to track if SSE registers are used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #4 from Anatol ---
> you need to save the complete vector state
It is a good point. Would it make sense for compiler to do it? Instead of
forcing users to track if SSE registers are used and doing xsave/xrstor
manually?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Anatol from comment #2)
> Theoretically it is possible to do things like this manually. Track
> functions x86 extensions usage and save registers accordingly. But I would
> love to see a more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #2 from Anatol ---
Theoretically it is possible to do things like this manually. Track functions
x86 extensions usage and save registers accordingly. But I would love to see a
more automated and less error-prone way to do it. Similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
