On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:08:54 +0100 Maks Verver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 04 February 2008 03:39:56 Martin Pool wrote: > > I agree, distcc should probably at least run these jobs locally, and > > maybe print a message to tell you so. Im not so sure about > > rewriting them. > Yes, rewriting them is probably too hard to do reliably. Simply > forcing jobs with -march=native or -mtune=native to run locally is > easy enough; I've added a patch that does just that, which I tested > locally. > > Note that -mtune=native does not result in broken binaries, but it > may result in code that is optimized for a different cpu than > specified, so it's probably best to run jobs with this option locally > as well. Is there any interest in getting this into 3.0 or a future release? -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
