From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/15 Message-ID: <4sdt1i$nqa@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168842022 references: <4s2tq3$fku@news.nyu.edu> <4sbtc5$uej@news.nyu.edu> organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: >As to the Pentium issue, this is more complex and there were two >factors. First, some of the optimizations required for the >best-quality code on that CPU are both very unique to it and are very >large pieces of code to add to the compiler. Secondly, the group that >did add these, and other, Pentium-specific optimizations to GCC did >such a bad job that it was not possible to fix their code without >rewriting it and nobody wanted to do that without knowing which of the >optimizations were the most important (otherwise, you'd risk spending >a lot of work on complex optimizations that had a small effect). By >the time this was done, the P6 became available. It does not benefit >from most of the Pentium-specific optimizations (which I knew a while >before it came out), so the issue rapidly became moot. Well, there's still going to be a lot of Pentiums out there for quite some time -- I wouldn't call the issue entirely moot yet. -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.