From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-160068-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1948 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2010 22:39:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 1939 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2010 22:39:27 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from vsmtp2.tin.it (HELO vsmtp2.tin.it) (212.216.176.222)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:39:23 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (79.33.222.108) by vsmtp2.tin.it (8.0.022)         id 49F5BE42184E8D5F; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:39:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4BA00898.3030307@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:57:00 -0000
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100228 SUSE/3.0.3-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
CC: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Why is __i686 undefined for x86_64 -m32 (in mainline)
References: <4B9FDCC1.2080201@oracle.com> 	 <20100316205821.GB3601@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> 	 <6dc9ffc81003161408k78a6b898p5f54c7c3b7b7a99d@mail.gmail.com> 	 <4B9FF4BA.3010206@oracle.com> 	 <6dc9ffc81003161420q702022a3mb95a0ca6e6709a7d@mail.gmail.com> 	 <4B9FF88F.4010609@oracle.com> 	 <6dc9ffc81003161433k77a294fayb8021d28f90deb7a@mail.gmail.com> 	 <4B9FF9DB.9050705@oracle.com> 	 <6dc9ffc81003161527i19986a2dodebc53066c7f0904@mail.gmail.com> 	 <4BA006FA.2040203@oracle.com> <6dc9ffc81003161536ic8dae2ga75590d6fc97619a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6dc9ffc81003161536ic8dae2ga75590d6fc97619a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2

On 03/16/2010 11:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> As I said, you should check __SSE__ and be done with it. Otherwise you
> will need to keep adding more checks for no good reasons.
>   
As I said, that file we'll be reworked *completely* by its maintainers,m
we have another PR for this, and I don't want __SSE__ which by itself
tells me nothing about atomic operations.

Paolo.