Re: mutex in frame code

[David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>]

>>>>> Joe Buck writes:

>> The list of extensions already is provided through -m flags,
>> e.g. -mpower, -mpowerpc, -mpowerpc-gfxopt, -mpower2, etc.  The -mcpu=
>> option provides aliases for common sets associated with each processor.
>> Again, saying a processor is an architecture is WRONG.

Joe> We agree.  So who are you arguing with?  An architecture is a set of
Joe> processors, each of which implement that architecture.

	I am arguing with people who are proposing removing -mcpu= in
favor of -march= and specifying archicture/tuning processor aliases to
-march=.  If you only want to move the -mextensions bits to
-march=extension, that is fine with me.  I do not have a problem with
-march=architecture assuming some benign tuning model.  I want -mcpu= to
stay and I DO NOT want -march=cpu to mean anything or to be a synonym for
anything.

	The rs6000 port allows -mno-extension to remove options implicit
in some processor.  -mcpu= and -mextension currently interact correctly in
the port.  If -march=no-extension also works correctly, they should be
equivalent.  -mpowerpc-gfxopt enables both basic PowerPC architecture and
PowerPC graphics options while -mno-powerpc-gfxopt only disables PowerPC
graphics options while leaving the basic PowerPC architecture enabled.  I
think that this is what you want -march=alias to mean anyway.  -march=
should specify architectures or correct combinations of architectures, not
processors.

David