On 13/02/14 18:23, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/03/2014 03:50 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
+# For ARM, the -march option by itself conflicts with any -mcpu option that
+# we might end up passing to the build, causing an error.
+# Therefore we override the -mcpu option as well.
+# This shouldn't a
On 02/03/2014 03:50 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> +# For ARM, the -march option by itself conflicts with any -mcpu option that
> +# we might end up passing to the build, causing an error.
> +# Therefore we override the -mcpu option as well.
> +# This shouldn't affect tuning much because the affected
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00069.html
On 03/02/14 11:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
There is a slight issue with the libatomic Makefile for arm linux ifunc targets.
It adds an explicity -march=armv7-a option to the command line to enable
building the exclusive instruc
Hi all,
There is a slight issue with the libatomic Makefile for arm linux ifunc targets.
It adds an explicity -march=armv7-a option to the command line to enable
building the exclusive instruction variants in libatomic. However, if the
multilib machinery tries to add an -mcpu option that confl
