X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT 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 DOT 5030109 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <49CF2163 DOT 3060602 AT gmail DOT 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 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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/