Subject: Re: [boost] Default x86 instruction set
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-07 13:06:55
On 7 May 2013 17:59, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 May 2013 17:34:17 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 7 May 2013 17:17, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> > Noone uses pure 386 these days, so the default in gcc.jam looks
>> > inadequate.
>> I would have chosen a different word :)
>> It's even been suggested to deprecate 80386 support in GCC, see
>> It hasn't happened yet, but if/when it does the -march=i386 switch
>> will look even more silly.
> Thanks for pointing to that discussion. Turns out 386 actually didn't support
> atomic ops. :)
Right, that's why GCC's std::string and std::shared_ptr (and
tr1::shared_ptr) use a mutex when compiled for i386. You really don't
want that if you're running on 486 or better, and *everyone* is
running on better.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk