On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:06 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> > wrote: >> 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. >> > > Checking __iX86 is a good idea for ISAs since it's meaning isn't well defined
I mean "isn't a good idea". > nor enforced. For libstdc++ purpose, can you check __SSE2__ in addition to > __i686? > > > -- > H.J. > -- H.J.
