From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-439023-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9943 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2014 23:09:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 9916 invoked by uid 48); 3 Jan 2014 23:09:49 -0000
From: "hpa at zytor dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/59672] Add -m16 support for x86
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 23:09:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: hpa at zytor dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-59672-4-wWzelXlFfp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59672-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59672-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59672

--- Comment #2 from H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor dot com> ---
It is much cleaner to have it in C.  We converted the assembly code to C back
in 2007 and it has been much easier to maintain ever since.  It works fine,
thankyouverymuch; it isn't *optimal* 16-bit code, but it is real and valid
16-bit code and we use it as such.

Sure, optimization would be nice.  Do we care?  Not a lot.