>>> where the >>> defaults are v4 and v8 respectively, and we can add Configure targets >>> that narrow this down for targets like these? >> Right now there is only one linux-armv4, and there is no >> architecture-specific flag there. This implies that you either rely on >> compiler default or pass specific flag explicitly at configuration >> stage. ./config actually does exactly this by adding -march=armv7-a if >> executed on armv7 system. So as alternative to this you'd pass >> -march=armvmin -Wa,-march=armvmax -D*MAX*=max, thus putting all controls >> to users' hands. >> >>> ... #1 has my preference regardless. >> Got it. > > OK. So the existing linux-armv4 target becomes a 'native' target then, > where the minimum architecture is decided by the compiler, and the > maximum architecture is whatever the most advanced one is that > supports all of the runtime selected options. > Would it be sufficient to have a single alternative target where the > max architecture == min architecture, both based on the compiler's > default?
I see no need as './Configure linux-armv4' without extra arguments would be min==max==compiler_default. Additional -march=armvX would be min==max==X. And additional -Wa -D would be min!=max. (I'll comment on the other thing later). ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
