About passing -mtune and -march options from GCC to AS

Dave Korn dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com
Wed May 27 00:33:00 GMT 2009

Previous message (by thread): About passing -mtune and -march options from GCC to AS
Next message (by thread): CVS write access request. Did not heard anything from overseers@sourceware.org in a week.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Valdimir Volynsky wrote:
> Please, read this thread
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/threads.html#01556
> What's your opinion?
> 
> Ð¡heers,
> Vladimir

  To sum up the discussion a bit for those who don't want to follow the link,
the question is how to communicate the options like -march and -mtune to the
assembler, without breaking anything if it turns out not to be GAS.  The ideas
suggested have included an environment variable (which as I understand it we
are trying to avoid as a general matter of policy), adding a magic comment or
ident string that GAS could recognize and other assemblers ignore, or deciding
whether or not to do so based on the outcome of autoconf tests and
--with-(gnu-)as at configure time.  Arguments for or against any particular
style of doing it, or new and better suggestions, would be eagerly received.

    cheers,
      DaveK

Previous message (by thread): About passing -mtune and -march options from GCC to AS
Next message (by thread): CVS write access request. Did not heard anything from overseers@sourceware.org in a week.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Binutils mailing list