On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Alex Beregszaszi wrote: > Hi, > > > Does anyone know, if gcc 3.x already supports MMX, MMX2, SSE and/or SSE2 ? > > > > If yes, then there's absolutely no need to fiddle with asm code around. > > > > One way is simply to use Intels C/C++ compiler to make use of these x86 > > extensions, but it is not as widely used and available as gcc.
> icc isn't that cool one, hand optimized code is much better Nowadays, c compiler optimizes the code that good, that you can't gain much with handoptimized asm code, except your code uses asm commands, the c compiler is not aware of. Further, asm code forces you to use and maintain lots of #ifdef...#endif blocks to be portable. And that makes the code look more ugly and harder to maintain. And I don't call that "hey cool!". I'd prefer to let do this job do the c compiler, whereever possible. > > Thus, if gcc 3.x supports them, then people just need to upgrade... > do not prefer gcc3.x over gcc2.95.4 especially by graphical libs/apps > gcc3 (and gcc 2.96.x) is a bit buggy yet with graphical codes. In other words: gcc 3.x supports MMX, MMX2, SSE, etc. but this code is buggy. Is that right? > It makes more sense to include support for MMX/SSE optimized codes. Yes, unless the c compiler generates code, that is as good as the hand optimized one. See above. CU, Christoph Egger E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
