Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:21:08 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: peter@spinner.dialix.com (Peter Wemm) Cc: dyson@freebsd.org, bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org, dyson@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/include endian.h Message-ID: <199612070521.AAA00201@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199612070511.NAA27272@spinner.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at Dec 7, 96 01:11:47 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > "John S. Dyson" wrote: > > > > > > Most of the kernel doesn't pick up the CPU options. > > > > > Why not? That seems to be unwise, shouldn't anything with any > > cpu specific inlines also pick-up the CPU options? Anything > > that uses endian.h (or cpufunc.h) are perfect examples of where > > there might be some value in that. > > > > John > > Perhaps we should seriously consider using 'cc -include opt_global.h' and > moving things like Ix86_CPU etc into there? It has the benefits of having > every file know about the settings, but without having to modify every file. > Other flags that might eventually be used would be the SMP ones? Imagine the #ifdefs (or macros that are conditional on #ifdefs) that there will eventually be when/if we do fine grained locking... John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612070521.AAA00201>