From owner-freebsd-current Sat Nov 20 10:22:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC13F14F7C for ; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:22:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.40]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA03339; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:21:57 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:21:57 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: Byung Yang Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cpu name In-Reply-To: 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 On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Byung Yang wrote: > 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? It makes it work properly, so yes it would. None of the kernel code is tested beyond -O. Much of it works, but if it doesn't you aren't going to get any support from anyone, except to tell you to turn the optimization down. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message