From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 31 19:01:27 2011 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 3674C106566C for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 19:01:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50948FC18 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so4903985vws.13 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=R/ymXn4NtAawBDskji7FZXWgq6QHCSy634eJXEfU/0k=; b=RamD3MBxxCM7aqNiPoHZnHaRHXq4IK29PJBtzdeC+ezqn8P811FrDPfNW9I80UgrFr Y/sEfe8cXJftdUOlKLGV7Fl/scIfd9AP1e0Ic+IBwXnBaE74L8llBeNCB2YlN8wBsLsE 97aUidOIJmwM2M+ZtfASuOkhAQCtpFbJp7X6M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=jzg31kNbTHC8fr/1QaNvbwAtfM8haDihI17cQOCMTLKkEtUrXG1t8yqrS8CZMtPzD9 byOY9ByiXbG42NECCySSollX85qWUCL/aVsCqHFN54X8t9MpLPYLaOzx5rxtLcXf39dE +HLuZJSgu/30FHuK9KVKMVDAGETG8o5AAtEZ4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.96.195 with SMTP id du3mr804295vdb.276.1306868485876; Tue, 31 May 2011 12:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.184.100 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 12:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:01:25 -0400 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Subject: Re: I486_CPU or I586_CPU in kernel config X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 19:01:27 -0000 Warren Block wrote: > 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. Removed: http://svnweb.FreeBSD.org/base?view=revision&revision=209460 There was a discussion about the implications for performance, although I don't remember when it took place, and whether it was on the mailing lists or in a PR audit trail. If you're interested you can track down the details. b.