Re: [Mingw-users] Correct target name for MinGW

[Earnie B. <ear...@ya...>]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:55:40AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > > > The problem is that binutils (unmodified sources), for example,
> > > > refuses to recognize i786, but builds fine as i686. (This was true a
> > > > few months ago, I do not know if things have changed now). On the
> > > > other hand, GnuMP will generate 786-specific code if given that
> > > > target. So evidently, SOMEBODY is using the processor ID. I was just
> > > > wondering if there was some official policy for naming these things.
> > > What calls something i768? I assume this is supposed to be Pentium IV,
> > > despite Intel's labeling it as "F". (Which I guess is to signify that this
> > > really is gosh darn it the end of the line for IA32....)
> > Did you get my point?  Or did you completely miss it by dwelling too
> > long on the fictitious i786, which follows next in line after i686 which
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > was preceded by i586.
> 
> I certainly miss your point with this message. Does GnuMP actually produce
> Pentium 4 code if you give it "i786"? I didn't look too hard, but the GnuMP
> documentation doesn't seem to indicate that. In any case, in the processor
> ID reported by the CPU, 7 does not follow 6 -- instead, it jumps to "F". So
> like I said before, who is using "i786"?
> 

My original point was to not be confused by the triplet string.  The
architecture portion of that string has nothing to do with the
architecture with which it runs on.  The triplet string is just that, a
string.  It was invented mainly to help with cross compilers in
differentiating the directories to search for it's needed objects.

I used i786 for purpose of example only, not stating that it's
available.  The 7 follows the 6 sequentially for the purpose of example
only.  I have no idea if it's a real architecture or not.

Earnie.