Re: RFC: New approach to --with-cpu

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:46:50AM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > Well, that's no problem.  A first cut of this patch offered defaults
> > for -march= and -mtune= separately on MIPS.  I could do the same for
> > PA easily.
> 
> I would be happy if the configure option for setting the default
> scheduling was "--with-schedule" rather than "--with-cpu".  This
> will set the default for -mschedule=.  Similarly, when an option
> is introduced to set the default arch, then I would like to use
> "--with-arch".
> 
> Using the same suffix in the configure and gcc options makes the
> relationship between the two options clearer.

I was actually debating this.  The advantage of using --with-cpu for
all targets is consistency across architectures.  The advantage of
saying --with-schedule, --with-arch, --with-tune is flexibility.  I
lean towards consistency, but I could be persuaded either way - does
anyone else have an opinion?

I suppose using --with-schedule on PA would also mean we could have
--with-arch, which is nice.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer