Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:20:30 -0300
From:      JoaoBR <>
Cc:        Roman Divacky <>, pluknet <>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <>
Subject:   Re: Adding k9 and k10 to
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <-3502020561049594852@unknownmsgid> <> <>

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 =
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=
I guess now but 252 is but not 100% sure



A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>