Re: Add -m{arch,tune}=local for x86/x86-64

[Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>]

Hi,

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:22:05AM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Yes, though that's not a problem (when I was still convinced of the above 
> > wrong thing, I argued that a user who would use -march=local on a i386 
> > machine in a cross compiler would get what he deserves, as giving this 
> > flag doesn't make sense in a cross environment).
> 
> What you're doing here is making life harder for anyone who builds
> cross compilers.  If we add this, a few years down the road lots of
> packages will hardwire it when targeting x86.  Please make sure it
> does something sensible with a cross-to-x86 compiler - probably
> -march=generic?

I can do that easily by just recognizing this setting in the compiler 
proper and handle it as =generic.  Question is, do we want to silently 
accept this option in crosses where it doesn't make sense, or do we want 
to give an honest error?  I have no strong feelings either way.

I'll wait some more hours or a day for more feedback, until I update the
patch.  From the answers up to now I gather that such feature in general 
is desirable, and the basic way I implemented it is also okay?


Ciao,
Michael.