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

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm 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.
> 

In what way is --with-schedule different from --with-tune?  Are they 
synonyms?

I can understand the split --with-arch --with-tune and --with-cpu (with 
the latter meaning -with-arch=<arch-of-cpu> --with-tune=cpu), but I'm not 
sure of the distinction between schedule and tune.

R.