X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49CF2163.3060602@gmail.com>
References: <49CD325C.5030109@users.sourceforge.net> 	 <49CF2163.3060602@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:55:50 +0100
Message-ID: <416096c60903290155g34878e17gf3311de983a659be@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: gcc4: missing atomic builtins?
From: Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

> =A0Well, I guess the question is, what's the minimum level of CPU we want=
 to
> support, and I can configure the next version --with-arch that level, and=
 as
> long as it's >=3D486 we'll be ok. =A0I think the question is mainly "686,=
 or is
> there any reason to have 586 as the minimum supported CPU"?

Windows 2000 and XP only require 586. Can't imagine many people using
them on a Pentium machine though, and the 686 CMOV instruction would
be nice to have. Also, should -with-tune be set to something recent?

Andy

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/