[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW librarie
|
From: |
Dan Eble |
|
Subject: |
Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden) |
|
Date: |
Sat, 1 Feb 2020 06:25:32 -0500 |
On Feb 1, 2020, at 05:05, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Frankly, I think that it would be better if our Windows executables just
> moved to 64bit but that seems like the more complicated option yet. And
> 32bit systems kept around a whole lot longer even after processors
> became 64bit-capable because they tended to require less memory.
You provided a lot of good information in your post, but the conclusion was not
entirely clear.
Are you suggesting requiring SSE2 at this time?
—
Dan
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden), David Kastrup, 2020/02/01
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden),
Dan Eble <=
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden), Thomas Morley, 2020/02/01
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden), David Kastrup, 2020/02/01
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden), Masamichi Hosoda, 2020/02/02
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden), Thomas Morley, 2020/02/02
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden), ArnoldTheresius, 2020/02/03
- Re: Inline assembler fallback for _FPU_SETCW() missing in MINGW libraries (issue 577450043 by address@hidden), ArnoldTheresius, 2020/02/04