On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 15:21 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on > > nocona ? I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or > > whatever) yet. > > There is a -march=nocona, and it doesn't define __3dNOW__. >
Missed that, sorry. > > So now you want to instead of fixing the amd64 profiles to be more > > flexible, implement something that will give the green light to users on > > x86 to use flag combinations, especially on older gcc's that causes > > great pain for themselfs and developers ? > > I don't understand this. Why is '-march=i686 -m3dnow' bad if it results in the > same thing as '-march=athlon-xp'? I guess I'm just lacking facts here, so > please > give me a hint :) > Check Chris Gianelloni's mail just now. For some compilers with some -march's on x86 it did not explicitly turn on some features (or maybe not to such a high extend). So where say CFLAGS="-march=pentium3" would work, CFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -msse" would fail to build, or generate bad code (segfaulting binaries). -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
