Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!dover!digital!chen
From: chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: 68k compiler target defaults
Message-ID: <4ba189ba.12c9a@digital.sps.mot.com>
Date: 16 Jul 90 20:52:33 GMT
References: <900715.20155735.017211@CMR.CP6> <4ba03a18.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Sender: news@digital.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola, Inc. SPS, Mesa, AZ
Lines: 29

In article <4ba03a18.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes:
>Hmmm, you're asking for the compiler to do a network poll to determine
>the mix of nodes, and pick the most appropriate least-common-denominator
>-cpu settings?  Or just a poll-and-set-it-once-when-the-compiler-is-installed
>sort of environment flag?  The former seems like an unreasonable burden on
>the average user -- I can imagine that large networks (of which we have one)
>might take more effort to poll than the compilation would.

Although I'm not sure I'm in favor of customizable compiler option, there's
a way to do that for HP/Apollo. Consider imake that comes with X11, one
can have a site.def file to have all his favor compiler options in it.

>If DN3x00's and 4x00's are all you have on your network, you really should
>see a *BIG* improvement at CR1.0 compiling with the default -cpu setting
>(mathlib_sr10).  At least now your compilers can assume that you have f.p.
>regs and better-than-68010 addressing modes / instructions at your disposal...

On a seperate issue, when are we going to see a version of Domain/OS
compiled with `020/030/040 option? Perhaps at least all the compilers
should be made with the option? I serious doubt there're many pre-020
cpu nodes around.

-- 
Jinfu Chen                  (602)898-5338      |
Motorola, Inc.  SPS  Mesa, AZ                  |
 ...uunet!motsps!digital!chen                  |
chen@digital.sps.mot.com                       |
CMS: RXFR30 at MESAVM                          |
----------