Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:02:58 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: optimization for Athlon 64 X2 Message-ID: <1C59BD08-1607-4E62-94E6-36620BCA1BF4@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20070324055129.GA7200@tcbug.org> References: <001c01c76d9b$58e687d0$6508280a@tocnet28.jspoj.czf> <4604B6FF.6010007@u.washington.edu> <20070324055129.GA7200@tcbug.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 23, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Josh Paetzel wrote: > Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Daniel Dvo??=E1k wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> out of curiosity, which CPUTYPE setting is appropriate for dual =20 >>> Manchester core Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor with FreeBSD 6.2 =20 >>> (GCC 3.4.4) ? >>> Googling throws up nothing useful. >>> Dan >> >> Try the -march value listed here (athlon64): <http://gentoo-=20 >> wiki.com/Safe_Cflags#Athlon_64_X2_.28AMD.29>. >> >> -Garrett > > That looks suspiciously like linux documentation...and he was asking > about the CPUTYPE setting in make.conf which is (?) FreeBSD specific? > > Anyways, there's a sample make.conf in > /usr/share/examples/etc/ that documents the various CPUTYPEs > available. > > > Thanks, > > Josh Paetzel It is Linux documentation, but considering that a) gcc is the gnu =20 based compiler, b) FreeBSD uses gcc for compiling everything, and c) =20 march =3D> CPUTYPE, that's why I suggested to use that value :). =20 Besides, Gentoo's crazier about compiling (in some respects) compared =20= to FreeBSD. Don't worry -- I wouldn't (knowingly) lead someone astray :). -Garrett=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1C59BD08-1607-4E62-94E6-36620BCA1BF4>