Re: Small change in NSObject.m ASM needed for PowerPC build

[David Ayers]

Am Montag, den 04.05.2009, 22:07 +0200 schrieb Fred Kiefer:
> > I think the way to move forward is to add a configure option/test which
> > would fallback to a more portable yet less efficient implementation.
> > 

> Yes, but what would be the condition to test for and what would be the
> correct behaviour then? Should we test whether we are on a i486 (or
> higher) processor and then add -march=486? And what if we are actually
> on a i386? And what should we do when we are on a machine where gcc does
> not provide that new build in? 

I would think that we should add test that always compiles and links but
also runs a small programm using the instructions unless were
cross-compiling.  But we also need a manual configuration switch so that
distributions can compile for "minimal requirements" on newer machines.

Cheers,
David