Fixing the -march/-mcpu situation

[Paolo Invernizzi]

On Thursday, 3 October 2013 at 22:39:55 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
> But I suppose the most reasonable choice is indeed to go with 
> the LLVM
> tool naming scheme (which we already do now), as we differ from 
> other
> compilers based on LLVM in that we also offer all the internal
> options. So, (1) would indeed be the most consistent way of 
> handling
> things.

+1

> Now I just have to figure out what the reason for having the 
> »you must
> specify a target triple as well with -mtriple when using the 
> -arch
> option« was. Or just remove it, as it really doesn't seem to 
> make a
> lot of sense.

If you find the sense of that, please post it!
--
Paolo Invernizzi