From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Wed Feb 27 10:51:37 2008 Message-ID: <47C5802E.30309@utbm.fr> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:22:22 +0100 From: Olivier Landemarre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: miro.kropacek@gmail.com, mint@fishpool.com Subject: Re: [MiNT] Some mintlib patches References: <47BC986B.7050704@gmail.com> <47C558F6.1080403@utbm.fr> <47C561EF.9060600@utbm.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id m1RFpane032128 MiKRO a écrit : > > time ago! Notice there was in past in the math.h inline asm 68881 > instruction that generate 68881 instruction even with 68020-60 option > but now this is corrected for a long time. > > As I see it, maybe netbsd guys decided to implement their libm in this > way but I may be wrong. For me it's a little bit difficult to separate > this stuff since when we're talking about sin/cos (060 emulated stuff) > it's clear math lib will be used. So question is -- where gcc even > have a _chance_ to use these emulated instructions? I never see any problem for tiny_gl and mesa_gl but you have perhaps true, in fact the option -m68020-60 is not the only flag that tell to compiler how generate binary, there is options when gcc is compiled I think it's define in CPP_SPEC and (I can't remember the file but sure some peoples can answer) there is a file to define the SPEC for compiler, it is possible I have modify it for not add 68881 instructions or it was already ok. I'm wrong? Olivier > > -- > MiKRO / Mystic Bytes > http://mikro.atari.org