This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: mutex in frame code
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Subject: Re: mutex in frame code
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:25:40 -0500
- cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 12:52:50 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Henderson writes:
>
>Richard> If we commonize on anything, I think it should be `arch' and `tune';
>Richard> `cpu' is too ambiguous.
>
> I repeat again that -march= provides the wrong information for the
>PowerPC port. One wants a simple way to specify both architecture and
>scheduler tuning; -mcpu= provides that information. -march= primarily is
>useful for processors in which each chip extended the architecture like
>x86 and Alpha, not for processors where an ISA was designed and maintained
>like PowerPC.
What about this Altivec stuff? That's an ISA extension.
You could provide -mtune=foo, with -mcpu=foo an alias, and not have
any -march= options.
zw