From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10383 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2002 15:18:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10354 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2002 15:18:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2002 15:18:24 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id QAA06696; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:18:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma005962; Wed, 31 Jul 02 16:17:11 +0100 Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2 [172.16.1.91]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23387; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:17:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23208; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:17:10 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200207311517.QAA23208@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: John David Anglin , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: RFC: New approach to --with-cpu In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:53:02 EDT." <20020731145302.GB31591@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:30:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg01875.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:46:50AM -0400, John David Anglin wrote: > > > Well, that's no problem. A first cut of this patch offered defaults > > > for -march= and -mtune= separately on MIPS. I could do the same for > > > PA easily. > > > > I would be happy if the configure option for setting the default > > scheduling was "--with-schedule" rather than "--with-cpu". This > > will set the default for -mschedule=. Similarly, when an option > > is introduced to set the default arch, then I would like to use > > "--with-arch". > > > > Using the same suffix in the configure and gcc options makes the > > relationship between the two options clearer. > > I was actually debating this. The advantage of using --with-cpu for > all targets is consistency across architectures. The advantage of > saying --with-schedule, --with-arch, --with-tune is flexibility. I > lean towards consistency, but I could be persuaded either way - does > anyone else have an opinion? > > I suppose using --with-schedule on PA would also mean we could have > --with-arch, which is nice. > In what way is --with-schedule different from --with-tune? Are they synonyms? I can understand the split --with-arch --with-tune and --with-cpu (with the latter meaning -with-arch= --with-tune=cpu), but I'm not sure of the distinction between schedule and tune. R.