Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:20:30 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, pluknet <pluknet@gmail.com>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: Adding k9 and k10 to bsd.cpu.mk Message-ID: <200708312120.31912.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070901000710.GA12223@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <-3502020561049594852@unknownmsgid> <200708312032.21574.joao@matik.com.br> <20070901000710.GA12223@dragon.NUXI.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Friday 31 August 2007 21:07:10 David O'Brien wrote: > > > > well, the x2 thing I wasn't thinking it through and you are right, > > what I meant to say that so far as I know all S939-X2 are SSE3 capable > > and rev-E at least as all am2 are > > > > so eventually, athlon64-E would be more appropriate (with proper man > > Why? athlon64-E should apply to athlon64 rev's F & G? k8-sse3 seems > best - with aliases for athlon64-sse3 and opteron-sse3. > ok right but it is harder for an average kernel compiler to find the SSE3 feature instead of the cpu's revision but certainly it would be easy to suggest to consult sort of grep -i feat /var/run/dmesg.boot to see if or not in `man make.conf` or somewhere, what then makes it ok as far as it is well explained > > opterons are not easy but it is already kind of advanced cpu so could be > > Why are Opteron's any harder? because all of them are 64bit but some older ones are not SSE3 capable, < 250 I guess now but 252 is but not 100% sure -- Joćo A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.brhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708312120.31912.joao>