Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:44:55 +0200 From: "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: Michael Powell <nightrecon@hotmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf? Message-ID: <y2zd74eb87c1004241044x1944ba7eh70a59eda80381681@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <hqv9pq$pec$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <201004241744.47794.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> <hqv9pq$pec$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Michael Powell <nightrecon@hotmail.com> wrote: > I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it does > the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed to not > make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has changed > and I'm behind the times. I wouldn't bother setting CPUTYPE at all. It's more trouble than it's worth. And you're right: for most ports and for the whole system, it doesn't really matter. If you have a very specific port that needs particular tuning, it has either already been tuned individually by the port maintainer, or you could apply more optimizations yourself (which would likely require a specially compiled tool chain, when -O<something> with the base gcc/binutils isn't enough). Unless you have a very specific need, better leave CPUTYPE alone. > Your use of athlon64 seems reasonable to me. It is what I've been using. If > it can be done better I'm always on the look out for better. > > -Mike -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y2zd74eb87c1004241044x1944ba7eh70a59eda80381681>