From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-46444-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 23094 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2006 17:41:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 23082 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2006 17:41:29 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from potter.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:41:28 +0000
Received: (qmail 28905 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2006 17:41:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 81-178-237-90.dsl.pipex.com) (paul@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Jun 2006 17:41:26 -0000
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Add --alt-nops=short|long to x86/x86-64 assemblers
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:45:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org,  Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
References: <20060613190254.GB21884@lucon.org> <200606151720.28010.paul@codesourcery.com> <20060615170747.GA8429@lucon.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060615170747.GA8429@lucon.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200606151841.24590.paul@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2

> > > I was talking about the code like
> > >
> > > 	asm ("some SSE instruction");
> > >
> > > If gcc starts to generate ".arch i686", the code above won't compile
> > > any more.
> >
> > I'd say that code is broken. You'd have the same problem if you
> > implemented the commandline options. I don't really see why x86 is any
> > different to other architectures in this respect.
>
> x86 is different, for better or worse. The reality is we can't change
> it in such a way that all sudden the existing codes won't compile any
> more.

Well, doesn't the same argument apply to commandline arguments. 
Having -march=i686 behave differently to ".arch i686" sounds like a really 
bad idea to me.

Paul