On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Renato Golin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 November 2013 19:55, Jim Grosbach <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Using -march= and -mcpu= at the same time should probably be a hard error. >> -march is preferable and 32-bit ARM is the outlier for historical reasons in >> preferring -mcpu. I’d love to be able to change that, but it’s likely to be >> a hard road. > > > The problem is that ARMv7A has very different CPU types (A8 vs. A9 vs. A15), > so getting "armv7a" doesn't narrow it down well enough. For all the rest (M > and R), it's ok to say "armv7r", "armv6m", "armv7m" (mostly by coincidence, > not design). > > Some alternatives, such as "armv7l" or "armv7hl", don't specify the CPU, > while "armv7s", "armv7k" or "armv7f" do, but it's not "v7a", which makes it > even more cryptic. With all that confusion, I still prefer the good old > -mcpu over -march every day. > > Also, I don't think that (march + mcpu) should be a hard error, unless your > march can completely specify the CPU type, or at least, the optimization > profile. >
It had better. The idea is that it's a particular cpu. It had better be able to completely specify the cpu type. -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
