On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 15:21 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on
> > nocona ?  I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or
> > whatever) yet.
> 
> There is a -march=nocona, and it doesn't define __3dNOW__.
> 

Missed that, sorry.

> > So now you want to instead of fixing the amd64 profiles to be more
> > flexible, implement something that will give the green light to users on
> > x86 to use flag combinations, especially on older gcc's that causes
> > great pain for themselfs and developers ?
> 
> I don't understand this. Why is '-march=i686 -m3dnow' bad if it results in the
> same thing as '-march=athlon-xp'? I guess I'm just lacking facts here, so please
> give me a hint :)
> 

Check Chris Gianelloni's mail just now.  For some compilers with some
-march's on x86 it did not explicitly turn on some features (or maybe
not to such a high extend).  So where say CFLAGS="-march=pentium3" would
work, CFLAGS="-march=pentium3 -msse" would fail to build, or generate
bad code (segfaulting binaries).


-- 
Martin Schlemmer