From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Aug 16 13:21:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from sgi04-e.std.com (sgi04-e.std.com [199.172.62.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579FC37B410 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:21:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kwc@world.std.com) Received: from world.std.com (world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by sgi04-e.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA4371601 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:20:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kwc@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14274; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:20:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth W Cochran Message-Id: <200108162020.QAA14274@world.std.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: New kernel option CPU_ENABLE_SSE Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hello -stable: A new kernel config option CPU_ENABLE_SSE has appeared. :) From recent cvsup of 15 August: Edit src/sys/i386/conf/LINT Add delta 1.749.2.77 2001.08.15.01.23.49 peter So far I can't find any documentation about this feature besides the brief comment in LINT, the release-notes mention and the cvs log message (other pointers appreciated). Questions: Why might someone want to include this option (or not)? Does this option entail a "cost?" Assuming CPU_ENABLE_SSE is a Good Thing, why not make it "default" with the "cpu I686_CPU" kernel config directive (similar to F00F_HACK auto-include with I586_CPU)? I guess my question "boils down" as "why not support it automa{t,g}ically?" :) Either way is ok with me; I'm just looking for an explanation and/or documentation. Thanks, -kc To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message