Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:58:26 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> Subject: Re: kernel cpu entries Message-ID: <20051215065826.GY912@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <43A0FC61.3060704@rogers.com> References: <20051215002618.B4D3B5D07@ptavv.es.net> <43A0E607.2030101@alumni.rice.edu> <43A0E916.7070204@samsco.org> <43A0EC9F.9080800@paradise.net.nz> <43A0FC61.3060704@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:17:21AM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Mark Kirkwood wrote: > >Is a minor update to the handbook needed in order avoid confusion > >then? e.g. I have been commenting out CPU_I586 on all my PIII systems > >in the (mistaken it would seem) belief that having CPU_I686 only was > >better. > > Agreed, i have always just used I686, assuming it inherited the features > of I586. I think most people will assume this. I did. (just another datapoint) --Stijn -- "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051215065826.GY912>