From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 30 23:53:34 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E09E106564A for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:53:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0408FC12 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:53:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4UNrXIa011649; Mon, 30 May 2011 17:53:33 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p4UNrWuh011646; Mon, 30 May 2011 17:53:32 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 17:53:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Adam Vande More In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 30 May 2011 17:53:33 -0600 (MDT) Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I486_CPU or I586_CPU in kernel config 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: Mon, 30 May 2011 23:53:34 -0000 On Mon, 30 May 2011, Adam Vande More wrote: > Perhaps this is the one you meant? > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2009-January/190568.html That's the one! Thanks! > Actually the two threads touch on the same subject, and it seems > removal of those options is still desirable on newer CPU's. sys/i386/i386/support.s is mentioned, but doesn't seem to have anything explicitly specific for 586. There are some i686 entries. A test for cpu_class==CPUCLASS_586 in /sys/i386/isa/npx.c is mentioned in the thread, but that check isn't in the current code.