RFC: New approach to --with-cpu
Richard Earnshaw
rearnsha@arm.com
Wed Jul 31 08:30:00 GMT 2002
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:46:50AM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > > Well, that's no problem. A first cut of this patch offered defaults
> > > for -march= and -mtune= separately on MIPS. I could do the same for
> > > PA easily.
> >
> > I would be happy if the configure option for setting the default
> > scheduling was "--with-schedule" rather than "--with-cpu". This
> > will set the default for -mschedule=. Similarly, when an option
> > is introduced to set the default arch, then I would like to use
> > "--with-arch".
> >
> > Using the same suffix in the configure and gcc options makes the
> > relationship between the two options clearer.
>
> I was actually debating this. The advantage of using --with-cpu for
> all targets is consistency across architectures. The advantage of
> saying --with-schedule, --with-arch, --with-tune is flexibility. I
> lean towards consistency, but I could be persuaded either way - does
> anyone else have an opinion?
>
> I suppose using --with-schedule on PA would also mean we could have
> --with-arch, which is nice.
>
In what way is --with-schedule different from --with-tune? Are they
synonyms?
I can understand the split --with-arch --with-tune and --with-cpu (with
the latter meaning -with-arch=<arch-of-cpu> --with-tune=cpu), but I'm not
sure of the distinction between schedule and tune.
R.
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list