Re: More i386 architectures?

[Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 12:01:29AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> Any suggestions or a preference?

My real preference is for someone else to write/design this, but here
are my ideas.  :)

Keep the number of bfd_arch_info_type entries down to a minimum, and
extend the disassembler -M option to accept all strings that might be
emitted in one of these notes.  Then introduce a new function that
returns available -M strings (for help info) if presented with a NULL
arg, or validates a non-NULL arg.

> >> If the user specifies an option something like -mi8066, does that also 
> >> set cpu_arch_name and hence select the architecture?
> > 
> > 
> > No.  Most current assembly won't even emit the note as you only get it
> > if the source has a .arch directive.
> 
> Ok.  Do you think that behavour makes sense - -m<arch> on the command 
> line being roughly equivalent to an explicit ``.arch <arch>'' on ``line 
> 0'' and hence emitting a note?

That would be reasonable, except that x86 gas doesn't accept "-m<arch>".
Trivial to change, but we might get some complaints from people who
currently use "-m" as a valid abbreviation for "--mri".

Alan