From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gavin Romig-Koch <gavin@cygnus.com>
To: mrs@wrs.com (Mike Stump)
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: mutex in frame code
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <14007.25134.285874.916089@cetus.cygnus.com>
References: <199902021823.KAA13030@kankakee.wrs.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-02n/msg00091.html
Message-ID: <19990228225300.2wz1qOtvUKN4YdedDv9L6_LHXFAWPamRqP_m-4hhgFw@z>

> and that these three options be documented machine independently 
> (specific values of course will be machine dependent).

I agree with the idea of working towards having all the ports
have similar meanings for the -mcpu, -mtune, and -march flags,
but I disagree with the idea of documenting these flags as if
they were machine independent.  There may be good reason for
a particular port to have a different meaning for these options,
either for the time being, or permanantly.  Documenting these
options as machine independent either forces port maintainers
to follow the documented behavior even when it doesnt make sense
for a paticular port, or it means that the doc isn't correct 
for all ports.  Leaving the exact meaning of these options
machine dependent, while encouraging ports to follow the overall
standard, gives port maintainers the freedom to make the right
decision for a paticular port.

If you really want machine independent options for these things,
and I'm not opposed to such a thing, then you should actually 
create some machine independent options (say --tune=, --arch=, 
and --cpu=) in the usual way.

                                          -gavin...