Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:18:51 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Raoul Schroeder <memphis_ms@gmx.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, clemensF <rabat@web.de>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CPUTYPE and ports Message-ID: <20010829171851.A77977@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <3B8D833F.EA5C1E1F@gmx.net>; from memphis_ms@gmx.net on Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:05:19PM -0400 References: <20010819061017.92A3438FD@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20010821181752.V45276@mail.webmonster.de> <20010821130119.H17739@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010830011735.D19000@spotteswoode.yi.org> <20010829163426.D77273@xor.obsecurity.org> <3B8D833F.EA5C1E1F@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:05:19PM -0400, Raoul Schroeder wrote: > > > > > how come AMD processors aren't supported (yet) bu gcc? > > On a related topic (which had been burning under my fingernails for a while) > The FreeBSD binaries (as on the ISO image) - are they compiled with gcc or > something else. > The reason why I ask: Maybe the binaries would be better optimized than if I > compiled it myself. On the other hand, I can run the optimizations > specifically for my machine, so if gcc is used for the binaries, then I'd be > better off like this. They're compiled by plain old make world on a standard FreeBSD system. When compiling yourself you can enable processor-specific optimizations for an extra warm fuzzy feeling which probably won't make any real-world difference to your system performance :-) Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7jYZqWry0BWjoQKURAusyAJ0eQfdVfFKzqgVacvoVB+tFNdWzOACg/ufX ugLSc7huc7az0+Ek862a5yo= =pnk7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010829171851.A77977>