On 03/16/2010 09:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I don't think it is a good idea to change the meaning of the macros years > after they have been introduced. > You could add a different macro if you want. > Why should be __i686 special? i686 does have __i586 features too, should it > define also __i586, __i486? Probably it should, in my opinion.
But maybe I'm missing something about the whole logic of the recent changes: wasn't about having the default for an i686 target similar, if not identical, to passing by hand -march=i686? I'm really, really confused... How is people supposed to figure out with macros that the new default configuration supports everything -march=i686 supports vs the previous status when it was identical to -march=i386?!? Paolo.
