From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Earnshaw To: Richard Henderson Cc: richard.earnshaw@arm.com Subject: Re: mutex in frame code Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199902011752.RAA06495@sun52.NIS.cambridge> References: <19990201093544.A18419@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-02n/msg00036.html Message-ID: <19990228225300.nJWiqNw61lQBnUeaYgABcFWXyJ2r9fpKbmVJemo85K8@z> > On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:36:10PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > > From: Joe Buck > > > This is unfortunate. We need a command decision to bit the bullet and > > > then to make the ports conform to this decision and document it. > > > :-( My guess is the SPARC port is wrong and should be fixed. > > > > Well on the ARM, -mcpu= is short-hand for "-march= > > -mtune=cpu". It makes life a little more complicated for me, but much > > easier for the user since only one option has to be given instead of two. > > If we commonize on anything, I think it should be `arch' and `tune'; > `cpu' is too ambiguous. Don't get me wrong -- I think -march and -mtune should be there, but it is a bit of a pain if you always have to specify both with effectively the same setting, hence -mcpu as well. My guess is that most users playing with this flag are going to want to set them to produce best code on the machine they are currently using. If you really care you can still use the separate flags. As for documentation, what's wrong with -march=foo ... -mtune=foo ... -mcpu=foo Synonym for -march=foo -mtune=foo R.