From: "Laurynas Biveinis" Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:10:08 +0200 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Tim Van Holder , djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: gcc-3.0 related patches for DJGPP CVS version Message-ID: <20010429161008.A419@lauras.lt> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Tim Van Holder , djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: ; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:49:26PM +0300 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 Precedence: bulk > > Don't the -march and or -mcpu switches affect alignment? > > Yes, they do. I'm afraid I don't get your point. [...] > Laurynas seems to say that he can suggest a better default than what > -mcpu implies. Oops, ouch. Some clarifications: I don't have any silver bullet which makes everything run fast on every CPU. What I am saying is that GCC provides defaults which fit into old i386 ABI. And some requirements for new CPUs do not, so they are disabled by default. That's why I am suggesting -m128bit-long-double, and that's it. Laurynas