Fwd: contradiction: arm920t support claimed in gcc 3.3.1 manual, not seen config.gcc (3.3.?)

["Wolcott, Ken (MED, Compuware)" <Ken dot Wolcott at med dot ge dot com>]

Hi;

  I'm responsible for generating a gcc cross compiler toolchain for a linux
 pc host and an arm920t (actually an arm920TDI??) target.  The gcc 3.3.1 
manual claims that the arm920t  target is supported:

*****************************************************************************
-mcpu=name
This specifies the name of the target ARM processor. GCC uses this name to
determine what kind of instructions it can emit when generating assembly
code. Permissible names are: arm2, arm250, arm3, arm6, arm60, arm600, arm610,
arm620, arm7, arm7m, arm7d, arm7dm, arm7di, arm7dmi, arm70, arm700, arm700i,
arm710, arm710c, arm7100, arm7500, arm7500fe, arm7tdmi, arm8, strongarm,
strongarm110, strongarm1100, arm8, arm810, arm9, arm9e, arm920, arm920t,
arm940t, arm9tdmi, arm10tdmi, arm1020t, xscale.
*****************************************************************************

yet config.gcc from 3.3 does not support this pattern:
*****************************************************************************
    2865 arm*-*-*)
    2866         case "x$with_cpu" in
    2867                 x)
    2868                         # The most generic
    2869                         target_cpu_default2="TARGET_CPU_generic"
    2870                         ;;
    2871
    2872                 # Distinguish cores, and major variants
    2873                 # arm7m doesn't exist, but D & I don't affect code
    2874                 xarm[236789] | xarm250 | xarm[67][01]0 \
    2875                 | xarm7m | xarm7dm | xarm7dmi | xarm[79]tdmi \
    2876                 | xarm7100 | xarm7500 | xarm7500fe | xarm810 \
    2877                 | xxscale \
    2878                 | xstrongarm | xstrongarm110 | xstrongarm1100)
*****************************************************************************

  The board is also called an arm920tdi according to local sources here.  I
don't know how that differs from an arm920tdmi or an arm920t or even arm9.  
The question for the gcc experts is: why is there a discrepancy between what 
the manual claims is supported and what the compiler itself supports?

  Could somebody shed some light on this for me?

Thank you,
Ken Wolcott