From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 24 17:45:01 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E6F1065670 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:45:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com (mail-ew0-f224.google.com [209.85.219.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8BF8FC1C for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so3099859ewy.33 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.49.146 with SMTP id v18mr1180991ebf.25.1272131095055; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.114.139 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [93.203.49.182] In-Reply-To: References: <201004241744.47794.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:44:55 +0200 Message-ID: From: "C. P. Ghost" To: Michael Powell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which CPUTYPE in make.conf? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:45:01 -0000 On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Michael Powell wrote: > I think this matters more to third party ports software builds than it does > the system. I thought that large pieces of the kernel were designed to not > make much, if any, use the various SIMD extensions. Maybe this has changed > and I'm behind the times. I wouldn't bother setting CPUTYPE at all. It's more trouble than it's worth. And you're right: for most ports and for the whole system, it doesn't really matter. If you have a very specific port that needs particular tuning, it has either already been tuned individually by the port maintainer, or you could apply more optimizations yourself (which would likely require a specially compiled tool chain, when -O with the base gcc/binutils isn't enough). Unless you have a very specific need, better leave CPUTYPE alone. > Your use of athlon64 seems reasonable to me. It is what I've been using. If > it can be done better I'm always on the look out for better. > > -Mike -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/