Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:53:21 +0300 From: Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com> To: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, pluknet <pluknet@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEvDtm5pZw==?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: Adding k9 and k10 to bsd.cpu.mk Message-ID: <46D92881.4000004@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <200708312308.25372.joao@matik.com.br> References: <-3502020561049594852@unknownmsgid> <200708312120.31912.joao@matik.com.br> <20070901014323.GA41683@dragon.NUXI.org> <200708312308.25372.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, JoaoBR wrote: > On Friday 31 August 2007 22:43:23 David O'Brien wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:20:30PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote: >> >>> On Friday 31 August 2007 21:07:10 David O'Brien wrote: >>> >>>>> 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, < >>> 250 I guess now but 252 is but not 100% sure >>> >> It's not Opteron model # specific - but silicon revision specific. >> There are rev C0 model 250's, along with rev CG, and rev E. >> >> > > less than rev.E support SEE3 ? Do you have a spec/link for that? > > >> Same for athlon64 - older ones don't support SSE3, newer ones do. >> >> > > like I said before 'older ones' is kind of lame def > > >>> people 'kind of familiarly' with reading manuals and specs are already >>> having difficulties here so imagin an average user (unkndefspec) who >>> likes to optimize his kernel (his cpu's kernel of course :) ) >>> >>> so as far as there are a cpu options for a freebsd kernel they should >>> be understandable so it might be worse thinking well before doing >>> (=less support = less questions = less problemas) >>> > > > > >> BTW, the AMD offically sanctioned spelling for GCC 'march' is "amdfam10" >> > > > I guess you agree without any objections that that this 'is 100% userfriendly' > and could by add as '100% userfriendly' and so then I agree as well ... > but ... will they print it on the box in order to see it ??? guess not ;) > > Sorry, but if GCC know the new amd processors as amdfam10 (with alias barcelona), but the FreeBSD alias for them is "athlon64-E" how this is more user friendly ? Same question to k8-sse3, opteron-sse3, athlon64-sse3. Please take a look at this link : http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/i386-and-x86_002d64-Options.html#i386-and-x86_002d64-Options As it is may be not a problem to have more aliases (not listed in gcc manuals), it sounds really bad idea to not have the same names as GCC. -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46D92881.4000004>