From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C4ABE3858CDA; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:48:01 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C4ABE3858CDA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1695631681; bh=w1rNYV2MhR2h3hIFZv5Viq9e9rvhl51uREOhZ7KX0K0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NwKH84wu5M2ADnJCXVCxQrr/n/Tn+uvqC/nQyP5Rsd0TTReiVVjsvT3mJBSbX0eEz 8OEHTLf6kqicaMMyZ34bIuUHqjRs2uVtkRAEwgdXmPHROgCnh2BNDAN2vodkbIkgq/ Yt2UcYNzGSIv3B8T1jve9UC7g/QBZegeAy0P/ZI8= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/111570] -march=generic prints error Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:48:01 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status everconfirmed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111570 Jonathan Wakely changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2023-09-25 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html is very clear: "There is no -march=3Dgeneric option because -march indicates the instructi= on set the compiler can use, and there is no generic instruction set applicable to= all processors. In contrast, -mtune indicates the processor (or, in this case, collection of processors) for which the code is optimized." This is just a bug in the list of valid arguments printed.=