> On 11 Nov 2013, at 07:24 pm, "Eric Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Tim Northover <[email protected]> wrote: >>> To me it would be odd if the AArch64 CLI behaved differently to AArch32, >>> except where absolutely necessary. >> >> The general GCC interface has been encouraging -march/-mtune for years >> now. I've no idea what reasons 32-bit ARM chose to go against that, >> but I'd want to make sure they were valid for AArch64 before >> perpetuating it. >> >> Inertia doesn't seem like a great reason except for ARM-only projects, >> which are fairly rare. > > I agree with all of this.
Likewise. The march/mtune mechanism seems to be the correct model, so long as it's clear that march specifies the base architecture name (I.e. what instructions/features are available to the compiler), and mtune a specific CPU name (I.e. how do those instructions behave on a specific microarchitecture). Confusion can reign if these get reversed! Nigel -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
