Re: PATCH: Re: Do we really want to use i586 code for i686?

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:58:40PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > You seem to ignore my bug report:
> > 
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2001-11/msg00052.html
> 
> No, I just don't agree with your conclusions.  That is a bug in
> linuxthreads that should be fixed.  One way to fix it would be to move the
> contents of linuxthreads/sysdeps/i386/i586/ to a differently-named subdir
> that is referenced in linuxthreads/sysdeps/i386/i586/Implies and
> linuxthreads/sysdeps/i386/i586/i686/Implies.

I am not sure if it will work since it breaks the model of

base_machine=i386 machine=i386/$machine

> 
> Another way would be to add a different flavor of Implies file (or a marker
> within the file, or whatever) for the Implies-within-add-on semantics.
> linuxthreads has two Implies files.  For
> linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/Implies, the current behavior is
> right, and your changes would break (e.g.) the aio code.  For
> linuxthreads/sysdeps/i386/i586/, the current behavior does not match the
> author's apparent intent.

That may work. How about we have

local:i586

to indicate it should apply locally? It can be used both in libc and
add-ons.


H.J.