From owner-freebsd-current Sat Nov 20 9:48:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from nowcool.dhs.org (fx3-1-031.mgfairfax.rr.com [24.28.200.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B7414D7C for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:48:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd@nowcool.dhs.org) Received: from localhost (freebsd@localhost) by nowcool.dhs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00396; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:48:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from freebsd@nowcool.dhs.org) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:48:21 -0500 (EST) From: Byung Yang To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cpu name In-Reply-To: <19991120104447.E41154@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I lowered the optimization level from -O6 to -O and now it shows the cpu name properly. I was using "-O6 -march=pentium" for the optimization flag before, but would it affect the performance of the kernela lot if I lower the optimization flag to -O? On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > -On [19991120 04:01], Byung Yang (freebsd@nowcool.dhs.org) wrote: > >as I see the source code, it is not doing what it is supposed to do.. any > >suggestions? (it's not a big deal but still it's a bug) > >I did not modify any of the source codes. > > I think someone else suggested lowering the optimisation level. > > Have you tried that yet? > > -- > Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai asmodai(at)wxs.nl > The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project > Network/Security Specialist BSD: Technical excellence at its best > ...in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message