On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:41:47AM -0800, cgd@broadcom.com wrote: > At Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:18:37 +0100 (CET), Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Well, I think this can be handled by creating an artificial processor > > entry (e.g. "PROCESSOR_MIPS64R2" in this case) and replacing it with a > > real one once an implementation is publicly available. > > yeah. doing that, but introducing known "to be removed" code bugs me. > > it's probably better than not getting the rest of the infrastructure > in, though. It seems a small problem compared to having to answer all the questions about why Linux tries to optimize for processor X when it's configured for type Y. People just love tweaking compiler flags it seems - even if not necessarily knowing all the consequences ... Ralf
