About passing -mtune and -march options from GCC to AS

About passing -mtune and -march options from GCC to AS

[Valdimir Volynsky]

Please, read this thread 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/threads.html#01556
What's your opinion?

Сheers,
Vladimir
---
Professional hosting for everyone - http://www.host.ru

Re: About passing -mtune and -march options from GCC to AS

[Dave Korn]

Valdimir Volynsky wrote:
> Please, read this thread
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/threads.html#01556
> What's your opinion?
> 
> Сheers,
> Vladimir

  To sum up the discussion a bit for those who don't want to follow the link,
the question is how to communicate the options like -march and -mtune to the
assembler, without breaking anything if it turns out not to be GAS.  The ideas
suggested have included an environment variable (which as I understand it we
are trying to avoid as a general matter of policy), adding a magic comment or
ident string that GAS could recognize and other assemblers ignore, or deciding
whether or not to do so based on the outcome of autoconf tests and
--with-(gnu-)as at configure time.  Arguments for or against any particular
style of doing it, or new and better suggestions, would be eagerly received.

    cheers,
      DaveK

Re: About passing -mtune and -march options from GCC to AS

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Dave, Hi Vladimir,

>   To sum up the discussion a bit for those who don't want to follow the link,
> the question is how to communicate the options like -march and -mtune to the
> assembler, without breaking anything if it trns out not to be GAS.  The ideas
> suggested have included an environment variable (which as I understand it we
> are trying to avoid as a general matter of policy), adding a magic comment or
> ident string that GAS could recognize and other assemblers ignore, or deciding
> whether or not to do so based on the outcome of autoconf tests and
> --with-(gnu-)as at configure time.  Arguments for or against any particular
> style of doing it, or new and better suggestions, would be eagerly received.

My suggestion: use autoconf.  This is the method that is already in use 
for solving other, similar situations.  Plus it has the least hack-ish 
feel to it.

Cheers
   Nick