Richard Henderson wrote: >On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 01:35:13AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote: > > >>We have to add to the library >>out-of-line versions of the builtins... (in order to do that, we may end >>up restoring the old inline assembly implementations of CAS, for example) >> >> >I don't think you need to restore inline assembly. > > Would be a dirty short-cut... ;)
>>If I understand correctly, this is what we are already doing in the >>*.so, for i386 vs i486+. I would not call that "optimization flag", >>however. Can you clarify? >> >> >I'm not sure how you were previously controling what went in here. >By configuration name? > Yes, see configure.host > That's certainly one way to do it, and >probably the most reliable. > > Ok, thanks. >Another method is to use -march=i486 on the command line, and from >there use the __i486__ defines already present to determine what >to do. Note that, at least for x86, -mtune=cpu affects __tune_cpu__, >but not __cpu__. > >My thinking would be along the lines of > > [snip] Ok, thanks. That is also by and large what I had in mind, modulo I would exploit our current infrastructure that you can ascertain looking to configure.host. To be sure: can you confirm that there is no easy solution for the x86_64 issue? I mean, it's annoying that we cannot inline the builtins for i686, but even more so for x86_64... Paolo.
