delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:59:37 +0300 |
From: | "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
Sender: | halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il |
To: | pavenis AT lanet DOT lv |
Message-Id: | <2427-Sat28Apr2001205937+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> |
X-Mailer: | Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 |
CC: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <3AEAF6C8.19289.14FAA0A@localhost> (pavenis@lanet.lv) |
Subject: | Re: gcc-3.0 related patches for DJGPP CVS version |
References: | <3AE96E9B DOT 10268 DOT B1244D AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv) <3AEAF6C8 DOT 19289 DOT 14FAA0A AT localhost> |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:58:48 +0300 > > > > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv > > > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:05:31 +0300 > > > > > > 5) for zoneinfo/src/zic.c changed '#ifdef unix' to > > > '#if def ined(unix) || defined(__DJGPP__)'. At least current CVS version > > > of gcc-3.0 doesn't define unix for DJGPP (unless I'm modifying specs) > > > > > > 6) removed #ifdef __GO32__ (it was also not defined) > > > > These two bother me. Why doesn't GCC 3.0 define them? There are > > ports out there which depend on these definitions. > > I see 2 possible places where to add them: > 1) gcc/config/i386/djgpp.h > 2) sys/version.h in djdevXXX > For end user both are identical. I like the first one better. > > > -MD > > > -O2 > > > ! -m486 > > > -malign-loops=2 > > > -malign-jumps=2 > > > -malign-functions=2 > > > --- 1,7 ---- > > > -MD > > > -O2 > > > ! -march=i386 > > > ! -mcpu=pentium > > > -malign-loops=2 > > > -malign-jumps=2 > > > -malign-functions=2 > > > > Shouldn't we revise the -malign-* switches as well? I think these > > switches generate suboptimal code. > > I think the best would be to remove them all. Removing them is certainly a much better approximation to optimal code than the above. So I think we should remove them.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |