From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct  5 08:25:14 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0DB106566C;
	Fri,  5 Oct 2012 08:25:14 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dimitry@andric.com)
Received: from tensor.andric.com (tensor.andric.com [87.251.56.140])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DE38FC1D;
	Fri,  5 Oct 2012 08:25:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.6] (spaceball.home.andric.com [192.168.0.6])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42FC35C59;
	Fri,  5 Oct 2012 10:25:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <506E996C.60203@andric.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:25:16 +0200
From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:16.0) Gecko/20121002 Thunderbird/16.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
References: <506C385C.3020400@FreeBSD.org> <506DEB4C.5020508@andric.com>
	<506E6CDA.4080507@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <506E6CDA.4080507@FreeBSD.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: x86 boot code build
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:25:15 -0000

On 2012-10-05 07:15, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 04/10/2012 23:02 Dimitry Andric said the following:
>> Well, do we still officially support any real i386 machines?  If so, we
>> should still use -march=i386 for the boot code.  Otherwise, let's start
>> using -march=i486 explicitly.
> As I mentioned earlier, the only difference for boot code is use of 'leave'
> instruction.  I don't think -march=i486 buys us much, if anything, except for
> "coolness factor" (i486 is "cooler" than i386).  On the other hand it makes
> binaries larger.  So...

Yes, the boot loader is a special case anyway.  If -march=i386 makes the
binary just a little bit smaller, let's use that.  At least then the
used flags will be consistent across the i386 and amd64 builds.