Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:03:52 -0300 (BRT)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>,
       Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] check_gcc for i386
In-Reply-To: <3F5145BB.5080906@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308310003050.20930-100000@logos.cnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1332
Lines: 40


On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sad, 2003-08-30 at 23:58, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > 
> >>> ifdef CONFIG_MPENTIUM4
> >>>-CFLAGS += -march=i686
> >>>+CFLAGS += $(call check_gcc,-march=pentium4,-march=i686)
> >>> endif
> >>> 
> >>> ifdef CONFIG_MK6
> >>
> >>OK, I forgot what that does. Can you please explain in detail what 
> >>check_gcc does. 
> > 
> > 
> > Tries to use gcc with the options given and if not falls back to the
> > second set suggested. So it'll try -march=pentium4 (new gcc) and 
> > fall back to -march=i686
> 
> 
> Yep.  I introduced check_gcc into 2.4 (backported from 2.5), in fact.
> 
> The above change does exactly what Alan describes, and is a patch I was 
> planning to submit myself :)  I did not want to change compiler options 
> at the time when I submitted the check_gcc patch, but after many months 
> of manually patching to get the best compiler flags, it seems solid.

I'm just worried about having nicey gcc surprises. Alan thinks its ok, and 
you too so I guess I'll just apply it tomorrow and see what happens


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/