From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 22 09:20:41 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 3AC3B16A4CF; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (corb.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2275D43D2D; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:20:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hawkeyd@visi.com) Received: from sheol.localdomain (hawkeyd-fw.dsl.visi.com [208.42.101.193]) by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA9A8405; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:20:40 -0600 (CST) Received: (from hawkeyd@localhost) by sheol.localdomain (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id i1MHKdL26024; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:20:39 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from hawkeyd) X-Spam-Policy: http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/index.html#mail Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:20:39 -0600 From: D J Hawkey Jr To: Tony Frank Message-ID: <20040222172039.GA25979@sheol.localdomain> References: <20040221160709.GA22447@sheol.localdomain> <1455334090.20040221175633@buz.ch> <20040221172328.GA22671@sheol.localdomain> <20040222140538.GA16873@marvin.home.local> <20040222150723.GA25548@sheol.localdomain> <20040222161211.GB35539@marvin.home.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040222161211.GB35539@marvin.home.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 05:16:42 -0800 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clarification needed on Handbook: Tracking for Multiple Machines X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: hawkeyd@visi.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:20:41 -0000 OK, I've cross-posted this message to -hackers, to see if we can get some sort of definitive [to me] answer. Please forgive if it's considered bad form. -hackers: There is a thread in -questions in response to my query as to building the world and kernels for a variety of Intel CPUs on one machine. For brevity's sake, I won't reproduce the entire thread here. OK, I guess my question boils down to these, then: True or False: Setting CPUTYPE to the lowest target CPU ("p2") in a build machine's make.conf will cripple the performance of target machines with higher CPUs ("p3", "p4", "i586", "i686", etc.). If "True", for optimized code across all machines, the code should just be built on each machine, right? Thanks, Dave -- ______________________ ______________________ \__________________ \ D. J. HAWKEY JR. / __________________/ \________________/\ hawkeyd@visi.com /\________________/ http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/