Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 20:53:53 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: processor compatibility when building packages Message-ID: <20011013205353.A396@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <20011013195937 DOT C31729 AT redhat DOT com> <20011014003337 DOT 29422 DOT qmail AT web14501 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011014003337.29422.qmail@web14501.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 10:33:37AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote: >Thanks. I must be misreading what "cpp_cpu_default" does then. If >configure without the cpu part of the triplet, that spec is left undefined, >unless I do the defines I mentioned above. Ahh, maybe it just affects >*scheduling* of code rather than code generation, ie. (-mcpu=i686)!= >(-march=i686). I asked a gcc engineer about that once and, IIRC, that is what he told me. cgf