From owner-freebsd-current Sun Mar 23 5: 8:37 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3494537B405; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:08:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97F043F85; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:08:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fearow@attbi.com) Received: from god.woofcat.com (12-251-110-17.client.attbi.com[12.251.110.17]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003032313083305200j51tue>; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:08:33 +0000 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:08:08 -0600 From: Anti To: David Schultz Cc: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, till@f111.hadiko.de, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: libm problem Message-Id: <20030323070808.0d3f63c0.fearow@attbi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030323074114.GA80906@HAL9000.homeunix.com> References: <20030318173051.GA2322@f111.hadiko.de> <20030319131317.GA670@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030321235237.GA8097@f111.hadiko.de> <20030322111233.F4471@gamplex.bde.org> <20030322005435.GA8393@f111.hadiko.de> <20030322051443.GA13854@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030322182846.GA81615@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20030322123951.67271b29.fearow@attbi.com> <20030323074114.GA80906@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Organization: Woofcat X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:41:14 -0800 David Schultz wrote: > Thus spake Anti : > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:28:46 -0800 > > Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > Pentium 4 is definitely broken on 5.x. Perhaps, we should remove > > > the footshooting. > > > > > > --- bsd.cpu.mk.orig Sat Mar 22 10:23:42 2003 > > > +++ bsd.cpu.mk Sat Mar 22 10:27:11 2003 > > > @@ -62,7 +62,9 @@ > > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "k5" > > > _CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium > > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "p4" > > > -_CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium4 > > > +# XXX gcc 3.2.2 appears to generate bad code on FreeBSD 5.x > > > +#_CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium4 > > > +_CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentiumpro > > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "p3" > > > _CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium3 > > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "p2" > > > > > > pentium3 would be better than pentiumpro on a p4 i think... > > You would think so, but in my (limited) testing on a P3, this does > not appear to be the case with gcc3 in -CURRENT. Optimizing for a > Ppro worked the best, IIRC. yes but -current uses the closest cpu setting to the cputype you choose, and in the case of pentium4 producing broken code the obvious fallback would be pentium3... if the goal is optimal code then use no higher than pentiumpro for any cputype as in -stable, but that's more a policy decision than something to be changed in a patch like this imo... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message