From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18849 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2010 21:06:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 18833 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2010 21:06:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:06:54 +0000 Received: by mail-wy0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 28so217917wyb.20 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:06:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.89.77 with SMTP id b55mr51552wef.286.1268773613454; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:06:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6dc9ffc81003161406w4206d3ecq3a12c03fbd7b5a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B9FDCC1.2080201@oracle.com> <6dc9ffc81003161253g6f2ef24dv605118dbc7664aa1@mail.gmail.com> <4B9FE683.2080903@oracle.com> <6dc9ffc81003161340o721cd497w5a63fb6ff9c24b0e@mail.gmail.com> <4B9FEFCA.2060308@oracle.com> <20100316205821.GB3601@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <4B9FF22E.8060705@oracle.com> <6dc9ffc81003161406w4206d3ecq3a12c03fbd7b5a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6dc9ffc81003161406m5917ec1eg9431a19623dcc7f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why is __i686 undefined for x86_64 -m32 (in mainline) From: "H.J. Lu" To: Paolo Carlini Cc: Jakub Jelinek , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Jason Merrill Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Paolo Carlini = wrote: >> On 03/16/2010 09:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> I don't think it is a good idea to change the meaning of the macros yea= rs >>> after they have been introduced. >>> You could add a different macro if you want. >>> Why should be __i686 special? =A0i686 does have __i586 features too, sh= ould it >>> define also __i586, __i486? >> Probably it should, in my opinion. >> >> But maybe I'm missing something about the whole logic of the recent >> changes: wasn't about having the default for an i686 target similar, if >> not identical, to passing by hand -march=3Di686? I'm really, really >> confused... How is people supposed to figure out with macros that the >> new default configuration supports everything -march=3Di686 supports vs >> the previous status when it was identical to -march=3Di386?!? >> >> Paolo. >> > > Checking __iX86 is a good idea for ISAs since it's meaning isn't well def= ined I mean "isn't a good idea". > nor enforced. =A0For libstdc++ purpose, can you check __SSE2__ in additio= n to > __i686? > > > -- > H.J. > --=20 H.J.