From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Thu Oct 24 08:26:09 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0CF164CC7; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:26:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46zL1F28X9z4hhs; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:26:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 2A36A96FF; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:26:09 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Dimitry Andric Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r353936 - head/contrib/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch Message-ID: <20191024082609.GA63459@FreeBSD.org> References: <201910231657.x9NGvCMD039111@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201910231657.x9NGvCMD039111@repo.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:26:09 -0000 On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 04:57:12PM +0000, Dimitry Andric wrote: > New Revision: 353936 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/353936 > > Log: > Bump clang's default target CPU for the i386 architecture (aka "x86") to > i686, as per the discussion on the freebsd-arch mailing list. Earlier > in r352030, I had already bumped it to i586, to work around missing > atomic 64 bit functions for the i386 architecture. Why i686, not i586? i486 lacking 64-bit atomics is a sound and valid reason, but I don't understand why i586 wasn't chosen, and quick review of that -arch thread did not help. Could you shed some more light here? ./danfe