From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13747 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2002 15:22:24 -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 13652 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2002 15:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2002 15:22:20 -0000 Received: from dsl254-114-118.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.114.118] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZvIM-0007rf-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:21:50 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZvIM-0000J0-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:21:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: John David Anglin , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: RFC: New approach to --with-cpu Message-ID: <20020731152150.GA1157@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, John David Anglin , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <20020731145302.GB31591@nevyn.them.org> <200207311517.QAA23208@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200207311517.QAA23208@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg01876.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:17:10PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > 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. Historical inconsistency. PA appears to define -mschedule but not -mtune; the meaning appears to be about the same. One thing I will _not_ do is allow --with-tune to set -mschedule, though; I'd rather add -mtune to PA and then use --with-tune. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer