Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 01:33:35 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: i686-pc-cygwin on an i586
Message-ID: <20060128063335.GC9904@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <008401c6235f$9280aed0$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <43DA9974 DOT 50606 AT byu DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43DA9974.50606@byu.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 03:06:44PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>According to Dave Korn on 1/27/2006 9:34 AM:
>>Nope, don't worry about it, that's a bit of a red-herring.  By default,
>>the code gcc generates is good for everything from '486 up.  The
>>instruction scheduling and choice of which instructions to use may be
>>tuned to be optimal for a 686 and so may be less-than-optimal on a
>>'586, but there should not be any actual backward-compatibility issues.
>
>Speaking of which, should the next release of cygwin gcc be configured
>to generate code tuned for 686, rather than penalizing most modern CPUs
>with 386-compatible but slower code sequences?

Why do you assume that this is not already the case?  I use i686-pc-cygwin
as the target for everything that I build and I use a i686-pc-cygwin-gcc
cross compiler.

cgf

--
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/