Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:41:15 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I486_CPU or I586_CPU in kernel config Message-ID: <BANLkTikRggozSjXrGUhTJrzSNaM02jfZEQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikUwUp8AGKz9uGyjwMpD3H6D9oBFA@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1105300842550.9995@wonkity.com> <BANLkTikUwUp8AGKz9uGyjwMpD3H6D9oBFA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > >> Some time back, there was a post on one of the mailing lists that >> suggested it was better to leave either I486_CPU or I586_CPU enabled in a >> kernel config even for much newer processors. For performance reasons, >> AFAIR. Naturally I didn't save that post or a link to it. >> >> Can anyone find that message, or explain why it would be good to keep >> either of those cpu options in a kernel that will only run on much newer >> CPUs? >> > > Um, I don't recall seeing that and have removed them automatically for a > long time. Here is one that suggests keeping I586_CPU with results that > seem less than conclusive. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-December/020702.html > Perhaps this is the one you meant? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2009-January/190568.html Actually the two threads touch on the same subject, and it seems removal of those options is still desirable on newer CPU's. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTikRggozSjXrGUhTJrzSNaM02jfZEQ>