> On 13 Nov 2018, at 00:34, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For people developing new code, it's the right way to go, and >> especially so for people working on gcc itself. For people just >> wanting stuff to compile, not so much. I fully expect a chorus of >> *MORON* or worse to come from the likes of the linux kernel rabble. > > So, if you just want to hear people whine... > > On darwin, we (darwin, as a platform decision) like all instructions > available from the assembler. The assembler and the linker have specialized > code to track all instructions used (from which CPU types those instructions > come from), and mark the object file according to what is actually used. We > also have FAT binaries as a standard feature and other things to make > everything play nicely. People that use inline assembly are expected to know > how to code, because it is an advanced feature, and not need hand holding on > how to write the condition that guards the code. I don't recall seeing any > reports of anyone needing any extra help in this matter. On darwin, there > wasn't a .machine for a while, it came later. > > Anyway, I thought about saying that it would be nice if all platforms behaved > the same, and ask, what do people thing the recommended behavior of all > platforms should be? > > Personally I don't have a dog in this, as darwin cannot be changed, it's a > platform feature, and personally, I don't write a ton of this type of code. > I just provide an alternate POV. Darwin has api's to query the architecture > and code in the assembler/linker to help manage it's decision. Normal ELF > systems, I want to say, usually lack such things. So, choices it makes > aren't necessarily right for others.
Given that we have our own assembler and platform equivalent of -many (-force_cpusubtype_ALL) .. I was just watching the thread go by ;) Having said that, it would be interesting to know what the recommendation is with .machine. Iain
