From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 14 20:44:09 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D0F1065670 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:44:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marshc187@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f17.google.com (mail-qy0-f17.google.com [209.85.221.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF988FC17 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:44:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marshc187@gmail.com) Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so1052440qyk.19 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:44:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=mouwmDrK79ygikK3R8UK0/k0SgRYJda4ESjQCoMlXdw=; b=GYYlbQmzL9pjtBkUkEbYyU3OyNYGpv8uO4ZevnV4WjovlrqzVhvcTq8ZwCR7rPbeej jLA2nPqhOFMI4VvokdQufvUSywGt9TtPU+p1iyk8aSgKwNklDonCkhdr4qovZa8hUBk9 N9twE7sxlsUnsiREFYsohtQmxVnK7Y9Ul1TPQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=co8gzmCSAiqcyu7IFy5TJmCdsvy6AOFgwBTbvGCNyhH0Yx4jvFCw+d/cHqQPBCbh8w 65Q+siojRrISxSMmg9bA/ajXwPyTPf1gzDMOlbfezCwuSGf8235x++nvETvxYYfljyM3 ioskjyZeKRijJ8JEJfgIvMJTbX/Ig6sArGrOk= Received: by 10.214.45.4 with SMTP id s4mr880222qas.173.1231965848010; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.215.14.1 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:44:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <332f78510901141244y198e7be6qf3b34f306c03f232@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:44:07 +0100 From: t-u-t To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <496E06D1.2070706@gmail.com> <20090114181522.GB4487@aurora.oekb.co.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: kernel configuration X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:44:09 -0000 On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Ewald Jenisch wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 04:37:53PM +0100, icemaca wrote: >> >>> >>> this i386 version has >>> >>> cpu I486_CPU >>> cpu I586_CPU >>> cpu I686_CPU >>> >>> >> Basically you can comment all but I686_CPU since the others are for >> earlier x86 architectures. >> > > While it is true that you can comment out all but i686 and get a working > kernel, you will experience reduced performance. There are a number of > low-level assembly routines (cf sys/i386/i386/support.s such as i586_bcopy) > that are conditionalized off of I586_CPU only, even though they provide an > advantage on i686 platforms also. > > -- > -Chuck > so in any case it doesn't hurt to leave all 3. right? I have one last question though, is makeoptions DEBUG=g necessary if i am not debugging or is it always necessary to build the kernel properly? can i safely comment it out?