sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:18:02 +0100
Hi folks...
we have now these minimal archspecs that do not specify -mmmx -m3dnow and the
like when -march=k6 and similar is there.
I understand that a main point in having these march flags is for selecting
the correct set of extensions. I am not totally sure if there are some cases
/ compiler versions where specifying the instruction sets in addition to
march really matters... if you have examples, please speak up.
Well, my point is... do we really need the normal and minimal archspecs when
both should have the same result?
Some distinction may be needed for the -mfpmath=sse issue, well... but
generally I'd like the bug
http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10198
to be discussed with the aim to have a final decision on these extra flags
(including -m64...) and the need for extra minimal archspecs or not.
We want to release archspecs 0.7 and that is sort of the main issue that has
to be resolved.
Alrighty then,
Thomas.
-
[SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?,
Thomas Orgis, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?,
seth, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?,
morfic, 12/05/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?, Arwed von Merkatz, 12/11/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?,
morfic, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?,
seth, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] minimal archspecs?,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/05/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.