Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:20:30 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, pluknet <pluknet@gmail.com>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: Adding k9 and k10 to bsd.cpu.mk Message-ID: <200708312120.31912.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070901000710.GA12223@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <-3502020561049594852@unknownmsgid> <200708312032.21574.joao@matik.com.br> <20070901000710.GA12223@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 31 August 2007 21:07:10 David O'Brien wrote: > > > > well, the x2 thing I wasn't thinking it through and you are right, > > what I meant to say that so far as I know all S939-X2 are SSE3 capable > > and rev-E at least as all am2 are > > > > so eventually, athlon64-E would be more appropriate (with proper man > > Why? athlon64-E should apply to athlon64 rev's F & G? k8-sse3 seems > best - with aliases for athlon64-sse3 and opteron-sse3. > ok right but it is harder for an average kernel compiler to find the SSE3=20 feature instead of the cpu's revision but certainly it would be easy to suggest to consult sort of grep -i feat /var/run/dmesg.boot to see if or not in `man make.conf` or somewhere, what then makes it ok as = far=20 as it is well explained=20 > > opterons are not easy but it is already kind of advanced cpu so could be > > Why are Opteron's any harder? because all of them are 64bit but some older ones are not SSE3 capable, < 2= 50=20 I guess now but 252 is but not 100% sure =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708312120.31912.joao>