On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jeremy Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 09:12 +0100, Julius Baxter wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jeremy Bennett >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> > >> > As note above you most certainly do want the compiler to emit MAC >> > instructions. >> >> And we think it's going to be used or useful enough to warrant >> inclusion in the multilib combinations? If I were doing the multilib >> stuff for the tool chain I wouldn't bother with it. > > If you have MAC instructions its because they matter for your > applications, which are likely written in C/C++. You probably care > deeply that the compiler emit them.
I'm not sure - aren't most critical DSP loops written in assembly anyway? Who relies on the C compiler to correctly and efficiently implement the particular algorithm you want? But I'm not an expert here and haven't done much DSP software stuff. > > Having said that, you may not worry too much about most of the > libraries, because they won't have code that benefits that much from > MAC. The exception being the math library. So you probably only multilib > that one. I like the sounds of that. Julius _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
