From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 13 20:33:21 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70BBEE3; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:33:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jmg@h2.funkthat.com) Received: from h2.funkthat.com (gate2.funkthat.com [208.87.223.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BD4A2E; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:33:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2.funkthat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h2.funkthat.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r0DKXL5f099390 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:33:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmg@h2.funkthat.com) Received: (from jmg@localhost) by h2.funkthat.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id r0DKXK3K099389; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:33:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmg) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:33:20 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney To: Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: how long to keep support for gcc on x86? Message-ID: <20130113203320.GP1410@funkthat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Konstantin Belousov , Peter Wemm , Adrian Chadd , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: <20130112233147.GK1410@funkthat.com> <20130113014242.GA61609@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130113053725.GL1410@funkthat.com> <20130113132402.GR2561@kib.kiev.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130113132402.GR2561@kib.kiev.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE i386 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 54BA 873B 6515 3F10 9E88 9322 9CB1 8F74 6D3F A396 X-Files: The truth is out there X-URL: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/ X-Resume: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/resume.html X-to-the-FBI-CIA-and-NSA: HI! HOW YA DOIN? can i haz chizburger? X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (h2.funkthat.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:33:21 -0800 (PST) Cc: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:33:21 -0000 Konstantin Belousov wrote this message on Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 15:24 +0200: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:09:09AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > > > Thus I think adding clang-only code to the system right now is very, > > > very premature. There still seem to be reasons to run systems on GCC > > > instead of clang. > > > > I don't have a problem with it so long as the system isn't *broken* if > > you're not using clang. ie: if the status-quo is maintained for gcc > > systems and g-faster bits are enabled with clang. It's fine to > > provide incentives to try clang, but it is not ok to regress the gcc > > case. > Absolutely agree. > > Please note that in the AES-NI case, gcc 'support' is only partially > gcc issue, if gcc at all. Our 2.17 gas does not know about AES-NI > mnemonics and cannot assemble them. gcc support would be better than gas support belive it or not.. > AFAIR the patch uses C built-in for AES-NI and SSE3 or 4, which I think > could be implemented manually in the amount needed for the patch, for > old gcc. It was actually using assembly functions since gcc doesn't have the necessary intrinsics... If it did, I could make things go even faster for both i386 and amd64... As it stands, the i386 implementation will be a bit slower since I'll have to pass in more of the blocks via stack instead of registers... amd64 allows 8 128bit args passed in via reg, while i386 only allows three... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."