[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F05C34D.7020609@hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:35:41 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: gcc versions
On 01/05/2012 04:20 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 03:56:16PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
>> The 4.4.0 vs. 4.4.6 difference is curious. I may need to make more
>> 4.4.x builds.
>
> So the change was between 4.4.4 and 4.4.5:
Great! So it seems we should use 1-1-1 for any version of gcc older than
4.4.5. I presume there is a macro for the third digit.
I'm still curious to know at what gcc version we would have to disable
intrinsics completely. Maybe we should still do it for <4.0?
I'm pretty sure we can assume 1-1-1 for 32-bit < 4.4.5 too even if
untested. I do not think I have ever seen a 32-bit build getting a
higher best para than 64-bit for a specific version.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
