From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 9 15:20:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D219616A4D5 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from praetor.linc-it.com (adsl-068-157-070-217.sip.jan.bellsouth.net [68.157.70.217]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A3143D1F for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:20:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-81-244-89.jan.bellsouth.net [65.81.244.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by praetor.linc-it.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480E5155E0; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:20:18 -0600 (CST) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id BFF8B20F96; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:20:15 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:20:15 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav Message-ID: <20040209232015.GE89781@over-yonder.net> References: <1076348333.b793fda0dkt@digitalme.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i-fullermd.1 X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: Dung Patrick Subject: Re: [call for helpers!] Tuning for the Beaver Challenge X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:20:20 -0000 On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 07:27:08PM +0100 I heard the voice of Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav, and lo! it spake thus: > > CPU_FASTER_5X86_FPU is not likely to have any positive impact on > performance, and fairly likely to render the system unbootable. I would guess just from the name that this (and some similarly named options) apply only to Cyrix 5x86 processors. Somehow, I don't think you'll run into too many of them in benchmarks these days. Just a hunch. > CPUTYPE ?= pentiumpro I recall a thread somewhere recently about pentiumpro being decidedly suboptimal for some new CPUs. Although, on 4.x with the older version of gcc, it may not matter. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"