Re: [PATCH] check_gcc for i386
From: Marcelo Tosatti (marcelo_at_parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk)
Date: 08/31/03
- Previous message: Matthew Wilcox: "[PATCH] vmalloc might sleep"
- In reply to: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] check_gcc for i386"
- Next in thread: Norberto BENSA: "Re: [PATCH] check_gcc for i386"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:03:52 -0300 (BRT) To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
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/
- Previous message: Matthew Wilcox: "[PATCH] vmalloc might sleep"
- In reply to: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] check_gcc for i386"
- Next in thread: Norberto BENSA: "Re: [PATCH] check_gcc for i386"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
