On 3/4/11 5:07 PM, Richard Fateman wrote:
>
> And incidentally, the use of SSE2 instructions should give CCL a boost
> over GCL;
> if somehow CCL could be compiled without SSE2 it might be much more than
> 3X slower on the tests I used.
Since gcl compiles by converting Lisp to C and calling the C compiler,
it seems fairly easy to make gcl use sse2 if the C compiler can use
sse2. I suspect that gcl needs to be built this way though. That is,
you can't change the compiler options in gcl to use sse2 and expect the
resulting compiled files to work in a gcl that doesn't already use
sse2. Calling conventions could be different.
Ray