From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FyqMp-00024s-BL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:27:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k67DQ3wO025761; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:26:03 GMT Received: from buggy.blubb.ch (cable-static-87-245-102-53.shinternet.ch [87.245.102.53]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k67DLA0c024749 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:21:10 GMT Received: from aqua ([192.168.10.5]) by buggy.blubb.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Fyq9C-0007xk-Sw for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:13:30 +0200 Message-ID: <44AE5FC8.1060107@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:21:12 +0200 From: Simon Stelling User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060605) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags References: <200607061252.33028@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <200607070258.36703@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <200607062115.01554.vapier@gentoo.org> <200607070429.04084@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <1152275645.9384.40.camel@lycan.lan> In-Reply-To: <1152275645.9384.40.camel@lycan.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 24f8a24c-253d-4fe6-b6bb-e119694b1921 X-Archives-Hash: 17c630c060469efad2f8045b31c6a856 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__. > 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 :) -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list