From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <1174679208.10836.71.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1174544624.10836.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <94d8e19d4b061504fcfd08d1ab70cc78@kernel.crashing.org> <20070323120619.GA7472@localhost.localdomain> <94FD59E6-B618-4AB2-9BAB-D40A70CC1589@kernel.crashing.org> <1174679208.10836.71.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <6df7c98b19ded7a8a006e375255e3c3f@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] force -mno-string option on cell Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:04:40 +0100 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Akinobu Mita , linuxppc-dev list , Paul Mackerras , cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> In the absence of -mstring and -mno-string options, >> GCC will default to either on or off based on other >> options (CPU model, mostly). This is good behaviour >> since it intends to give you the best code sequences >> for whatever CPU you selected (or for a blended CPU >> model etc). > > strings instructions suck, get away with it. No they don't. End of this particular subthread I suppose, heh. Segher