On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:31:37PM -0800, David Daney wrote: > On 02/18/2010 03:30 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without > >> --with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we > >> would only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support. Can > >> we reconsider the default for 4.5? > > > > Is anyone still manufacturing x86 CPUs that don't support the atomic > > instructions? > > Should it just be a question of 'manufacturing'? Or should 'using' be a > criterion for any decision?
> Not that I disagree with Jason's suggestion, it is probably the right > choice. "using" would be the right criterion if Jason were advocating removing support for i386 but he only proposed changing the default. But maybe I didn't ask the right question: can any x86 experts comment on recently made x86 CPUs that would not function correctly with code produced by --with-arch=i486? Are there any?
