Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 22:45:20 -0800 (PST) From: fbsdmail@dnswatch.com To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is Gnome2 not supported on the amd64 ARCH? Message-ID: <28cdac712efe4eff35e0d775a0270971.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> In-Reply-To: <4D20B769.5000704@gmail.com> References: <9193ef9ae95084284226832557f8c755.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <20110102125137.4423cb08@ernst.jennejohn.org> <15cc929589a6426f0dad97fac66ed328.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <20110102150551.24f5193e@ernst.jennejohn.org> <0cdfb22d89c8f85ec31704c35982e0e2.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <4D2090FC.5030409@lazlarlyricon.com> <4D20B769.5000704@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
# # # TOP POSTING IS EVIL # # # >> 2011-01-02 15:42, fbsdmail@dnswatch.com skrev: >> <...> >> >>> Hello again, and thanks for your response. >>> I commented it out after responding to your response, and >>> it happily built. I just figured I'd use the CPUTYPE?= option to gain >>> better amd64 profiling, but apparently it's only _really_ available >>> for the i386 CPU's. I say that because I've always used that option >>> when building on those ARCH types, and never ran into a problem. Oh >>> well, hopefully sometime son, it'll be better supported on the amd64 - >>> fingers crossed. :) >>> >>> Thanks again for taking the time to respond. >>> >>> >>> --Chris >>> >>> >>> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I have an Intel CPU that's amd64 compatible, and I use CPUTYPE?=native, >> which never gave me any problems (I use it for all builds, including >> kernel and world). I can't say whether it works with AMD CPUs though. >> Nor can I really say if it makes a difference, because I've never tried >> without it. >> >> /Rolf >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64 >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> On Sun, January 2, 2011 9:35 am, Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote: > hw.model: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+ > CPUTYPE?= athlon64 > > > I've never encountered any CPUTYPE specific problems so far, and I have > GNOME2 and almost 1000 ports compiled on my desktop, plus the OS itself. > > > I wonder if "athlon-mp" is so different to be causing the problems > you've encountered or if there was something else that got fixed > coincidentally when you commented out CPUTYPE from make.conf. Greetings Luchesar, and thank you for your reply. I've got a couple of other threads on the @stable list, and one other on this one related to this. Last time I researched make(1) and make.conf(5), the common consensus was that (open)ssl, and possibly a couple of others were the only things that ever made use of the flag. However, when I experimented heavily on older CPU's, I discovered that CPUTYPE?= _did_ make a difference. In some cases it simply made the difference for correctly recognizing the CPU, in all cases, it added the "feature set" that that CPU possessed - SSE, SSE2, 3DNow, etc... So, I find myself inclined to make use of CPUTYPE?= whenever possible. Problem is, I don't always keep up on gcc(1)'s changes/additions. Which I think is the case here. My _guess_ is that they changed the name(s) - however slightly, and I found out the "hard way". :-\ Bottom line; I need to take the time, and find the difference(s) from then<--to-->now to use it effectively. Thanks again for your reply. --Chris > > Cheers, > Luchesar > > > > > -- kern: FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE amd64
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?28cdac712efe4eff35e0d775a0270971.dnswclient>