Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th May 2007 22:16 UTC
Permalink for comment 243453
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-16
You can pretty much forget about that unless you're thinking patch releases from Intel/AMD that will never appear in the core release, because of the GCC policy of not accepting platform specific stuff.
Could you expand on this? Every back-end to gcc is platform specific. Gcc vector extensions are heavily dependent on the target architecture. Heck, the entire -march=foo tag is used to enable platform-specific stuff. In what way is the gcc team unwilling to accept things that are platform specific?