On Jan 28 01:33, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:06:44PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > >According to Dave Korn on 1/27/2006 9:34 AM: > >>Nope, don't worry about it, that's a bit of a red-herring. By default, > >>the code gcc generates is good for everything from '486 up. The > >>instruction scheduling and choice of which instructions to use may be > >>tuned to be optimal for a 686 and so may be less-than-optimal on a > >>'586, but there should not be any actual backward-compatibility issues. > > > >Speaking of which, should the next release of cygwin gcc be configured > >to generate code tuned for 686, rather than penalizing most modern CPUs > >with 386-compatible but slower code sequences? > > Why do you assume that this is not already the case? I use i686-pc-cygwin > as the target for everything that I build and I use a i686-pc-cygwin-gcc > cross compiler.
Same here, same for the net distro itself. AFAIK we're generating i686-opimized code by default for at least three years, don't we? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/
