On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:29:44 +1000
Beau Henderson wrote:
> So is GCC ignoring the fact that the systems CHOST is i686 or is this
> truly optimized for my situation ?
No, it shouldn't ignore CHOST to produce the correct binaries.
And yes, I believe (according to man gcc) that native/core2 or an
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Mike Kazantsev
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:20:34 +1000
> Beau Henderson wrote:
>
>> I was playing around with a few non-essential packages the other day
>> using -march=native -v on my core2 duo ( configured with
>> CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" ) and noticed tha
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:20:34 +1000
Beau Henderson wrote:
> I was playing around with a few non-essential packages the other day
> using -march=native -v on my core2 duo ( configured with
> CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" ) and noticed that GCC set the -march=core2
> rather than what is typically sugges
G'day,
I was playing around with a few non-essential packages the other day
using -march=native -v on my core2 duo ( configured with
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" ) and noticed that GCC set the -march=core2
rather than what is typically suggested on the 3rd party wiki ( which
is to use prescott ). Acc
4 matches
Mail list logo