On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> > If a test exposes a case where something requires 53/64-bit IEEE
> > double precision as opposed to 64/80-bit double extended, and we're
> > changing our configuration "to make tes
Basically all Intel CPUs since Pentium 4 (since year 2000) support
SSE2, as well as AMD K8 CPUs. The main group seemingly left out is
Athlons pre-K8 (e.g. the non-64 bit versions available through 2005).
Do we have any sense of how big a market is? Is this basically the
same thing as Win2K where
Adam Langley wrote:
> * x87 doubles are 80-bits in registers and 64-bits in memory.
Depending on the state of the x87 floating point control word.
Can bracket significant test-impacting floating point operations with
fldcw or do something else in that code to force spills to memory?
I'm aware o
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> doing something wrong. Using SSE2 floating-point operations in a
> configuration that we test and then using x87 floating-point
> operations in a configuration that we release is completely bogus.
The reality of the situation:
* x87 doub
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> If a test exposes a case where something requires 53/64-bit IEEE
> double precision as opposed to 64/80-bit double extended, and we're
> changing our configuration "to make tests pass" but then releasing in
> another configuration where tho
Dan Kegel wrote:
> It's so our tests pass, I think.
We don't have tests for nothing.
If a test exposes a case where something requires 53/64-bit IEEE
double precision as opposed to 64/80-bit double extended, and we're
changing our configuration "to make tests pass" but then releasing in
another
It's so our tests pass, I think.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> Is there a reason we gate this on branding? The comment doesn't speak
> to that at all.
>
> Evan Martin wrote:
>> The code doesn't lie:
>>
>> 'conditions': [
>> ['branding=="Chromium
Google Chrome builds without SSE2.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> Oddly, I can still install fine on my pentium III laptop, I think.
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
>> The code doesn't lie:
>>
>> 'conditions': [
>> ['brandi
Is there a reason we gate this on branding? The comment doesn't speak
to that at all.
Evan Martin wrote:
> The code doesn't lie:
>
> 'conditions': [
> ['branding=="Chromium"', {
> 'cflags': [
> '-march=pentium4',
> '-msse2',
Oddly, I can still install fine on my pentium III laptop, I think.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
> The code doesn't lie:
>
> 'conditions': [
> ['branding=="Chromium"', {
> 'cflags': [
> '-march=pentium4',
>
The code doesn't lie:
'conditions': [
['branding=="Chromium"', {
'cflags': [
'-march=pentium4',
'-msse2',
'-mfpmath=sse',
],
}],
],
http://code.google.com/p/c
Does our default build really depend on -msse2 anymore? Doesn't
seem to on linux...
2009/9/22 Ujjwol (उज्जवल लामिछाने) :
>
> This (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxPackaging) page says
> that
> For silly reasons our default build depends on SSE, but we don't
> actually need. Search ba
2009/9/22 Ujjwol (उज्जवल लामिछाने) :
> But I cannot find base.common.gypi in the source tarball of the
> chromium. How should I fix this problem ?
Opps, there was a typo on that wiki page which I've now fixed. The
correct location is build/common.gypi.
AGL
--~--~-~--~~~
13 matches
Mail list logo
