From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Why is __i686 undefined for x86_64 -m32 (in mainline)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B9FF4BA.3010206@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6dc9ffc81003161408k78a6b898p5f54c7c3b7b7a99d@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/16/2010 10:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I don't think it is a good idea to change the meaning of the macros years
>> after they have been introduced.
>> You could add a different macro if you want.
>> Why should be __i686 special? i686 does have __i586 features too, should it
>> define also __i586, __i486? Should __core2 define __pentium4? Etc., etc.
>>
>>
> I don't think we should add those at all.
>
About i586 & co, I see now that you are right.
To recapitulate my point, it just seemed strange to me, that, before and
after the recent changes, __i386 is defined, whereas __i686 is defined
only if I pass -march=i686. On the other hand, after the recent changes,
which essentially change the default subtarget to -march=i686, __i686 is
not defined by default.
Paolo.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-16 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4B9FDCC1.2080201@oracle.com>
2010-03-16 20:00 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 20:40 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 20:53 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 20:58 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 21:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2010-03-16 21:06 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 21:06 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 21:08 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 21:15 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 21:21 ` Paolo Carlini [this message]
2010-03-16 21:31 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 21:34 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 21:36 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 22:27 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 22:32 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 22:36 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 22:39 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-16 22:57 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 23:11 ` H.J. Lu
2010-03-17 3:27 ` Paolo Carlini
2010-03-16 19:53 Paolo Carlini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B9FF4BA.3010206@oracle.com \
--to=paolo.carlini@oracle.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).