Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 19:59:37 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: processor compatibility when building packages Message-ID: <20011013195937.C31729@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <20011013222258 DOT 87917 DOT qmail AT web14503 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011013222258.87917.qmail@web14503.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 08:22:58AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote: >This topic came up about a year ago on this list: >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2000-07/msg00039.html > >and I've recently raised it again on mingw lists. > >Looking at cygwin's spec file it says: > > >*cpp_cpu_default: >%(cpp_686) > > >To me that means that, unless user overrides with command line -march or >-mcpu option, code is tuned for i686. To get that into the specs file, one >has to either configure gcc so that TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT=3 (=pentium) or pass >that define to make when building gcc. I do neither of those things when configuring gcc for cygwin. I do configure everything as i686-pc-cygwin, though. >That interpretion is different from the conclusion that was posted in the >message pointed to above, which says that cygwin-produced code will run on >any i[35467]86 arch. > >I'm not talking about the platform triplet moniker -- that I realise is >just a name. I'm asking: Has anyone complained that cygwin-built apps fail >on i386 but not on i686? Nope, never. cgf