From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 28 17:28:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09F316A416; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:28:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailout1.pacific.net.au (mailout1-3.pacific.net.au [61.8.2.210]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E74C43D76; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:27:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.2.162]) by mailout1.pacific.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8085961FF79; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from epsplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) by mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id k8SHRnj7010287; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:27:50 +1000 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:55:59 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@epsplex.bde.org To: Ruslan Ermilov In-Reply-To: <20060928101535.GB4708@rambler-co.ru> Message-ID: <20060929014648.T2802@epsplex.bde.org> References: <20060928001028.A6D907302F@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20060928101535.GB4708@rambler-co.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:17:13 +0000 Cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:28:00 -0000 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > I.e., by default, -m32 on amd64 still tunes for k8. I don't > know what others think about it (perhaps it would still be > a good idea to tune for k8 on amd64 even in the boot code), No, speed is unimportant and tuning for Athlons generally gives larger code (though it probably shouldn't with -Os). However, tuning for i386 might not give smallest code. amd64 can also execute non-i386 instructions so it could use "arch"ing instead of tuning for Athlons. At least bswap would be smaller (probably not enough other instructions to matter). I don't know how to use non-i386 instructions without losing tuning for i386's. > but for now this looked a good work-around to me, and it > definitely takes less bytes than the k8-tuned version. Bruce