From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent GUERBY Subject: Re: GCC -msse2 portability question Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:43:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1395740605.15058.205.camel@pc2> References: <532F3B0E.2050204@dachary.org> <1395614070.15058.140.camel@pc2> <5330A328.9060203@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from lists.tetaneutral.net ([91.224.149.207]:48326 "EHLO lists.tetaneutral.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752588AbaCYJnd (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:43:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5330A328.9060203@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Loic Dachary Cc: Kevin Greenan , Ceph Development On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 22:27 +0100, Loic Dachary wrote: > > On 23/03/2014 23:34, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html#i386-and-x86-64-Options > > > > So unless you want to run your code a very very old x86 32 bit processor > > "-msse" shouldn't be an issue. "-msse2" is similar. > > This is good to know :) Should I be worried about unintended side effects of -msse4.2 -mssse3 -msse4.1 or -mpclmul ? These are the flags that gf-complete are using, specifically. Hi, SSE4.2 will be available only in more recent processors as documented on the page above. If your library already is dynamically checking for processor feature I would advise to be conservative in your -m flags, ie using what debian would use for maximum x86 portability. Sincerely, Laurent