X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<49CF2163.3060602@gmail.com>
References:	<49CD325C DOT 5030109 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <49CF2163 DOT 3060602 AT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:55:50 +0100
Message-ID:	<416096c60903290155g34878e17gf3311de983a659be@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: gcc4: missing atomic builtins?
From:	Andy Koppe <andy DOT koppe AT gmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

> =A0Well, I guess the question is, what's the minimum level of CPU we want=
 to
> support, and I can configure the next version --with-arch that level, and=
 as
> long as it's >=3D486 we'll be ok. =A0I think the question is mainly "686,=
 or is
> there any reason to have 586 as the minimum supported CPU"?

Windows 2000 and XP only require 586. Can't imagine many people using
them on a Pentium machine though, and the 686 CMOV instruction would
be nice to have. Also, should -with-tune be set to something recent?

Andy

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -