This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

[Patch ping] was: Option to compile for both AMD64 and EM64T?

From: Kelley Cook <kcook at gcc dot gnu dot org>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:08:49 -0400
Subject: [Patch ping] was: Option to compile for both AMD64 and EM64T?
References: <AA96E9254C49F948A74E530AB7B6114879B9B7@hermes.demaco.com>

Justin Palmer wrote:

Hi,

Since the differences between AMD64 and EM64T are minor, will GCC have an option to compile applications for both?
Linux-Kernel Archive reference:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0402.3/0276.html
Currently, the -mtune, -march, and -mcpu values must specify one of: nocona, k8, opteron, athlon64, or athlon-fx. My software group has been using i686 to build one executable for both Intel and AMD 32-bit processors and would like to build one executable for their 64-bit processors.

Also, do the docs need updated for -m64 or is that option really for AMD64 only?

With the experimental GCC 3.5, -march=x86-64 does what you want. You probably could backport the patch to GCC 3.4 without much problem.

And the reminds of a patch that I submitted a while ago which resets the default x86 complier to the generic version for same reason you mentioned.

Could someone review http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg00352.html?

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]