From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 3 15:28:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594D9106564A for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:28:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luchesar.iliev@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27928FC21 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:28:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm16 with SMTP id 16so13102574fxm.13 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 07:28:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id :disposition-notification-to:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8b8iLCYCjFXl++95zBwx2UJ0VRJYYdAUa1WYWd+DaJs=; b=ccTyK+fLD5W8/7DAtfXmKwRhsW2zgPKCw3QjXiU1/OJ6oNlughhMunD07dwoYNNcml amWzToPFKkJYlqneQesOOUhlk6L9tfTTvBHE3EDUpeWggT6bxS0JawnjWAC6dwWYmt71 +zWQgovs0cEOfKFwy5YSGxxUAKEqoOohnje0g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=H8g0ykN2ulMscfUy6YOzIQPw8TY5127CMiJTfWLQITvU2cEcL53JT+M0QtwoHcTOxj moycymVYldRjstYqIm4FSzf7FQNcO5sjdFI0sNdG6m/HLq+4P0Zb4+j5Mn+9hUdq0gLo zzbZUYpEwj5jqK0OTztf2+GogAbtPNYOwVyQM= Received: by 10.223.87.14 with SMTP id u14mr4800080fal.116.1294068480078; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 07:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [79.124.93.41] ([79.124.93.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm4770947fav.41.2011.01.03.07.27.58 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 03 Jan 2011 07:27:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D21EAFD.4020104@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:27:57 +0200 From: "Luchesar V. ILIEV" Organization: Ideaconsult Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101229 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fbsdmail@dnswatch.com References: <9193ef9ae95084284226832557f8c755.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <20110102125137.4423cb08@ernst.jennejohn.org> <15cc929589a6426f0dad97fac66ed328.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <20110102150551.24f5193e@ernst.jennejohn.org> <0cdfb22d89c8f85ec31704c35982e0e2.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> <4D2090FC.5030409@lazlarlyricon.com> <4D20B769.5000704@gmail.com> <28cdac712efe4eff35e0d775a0270971.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> In-Reply-To: <28cdac712efe4eff35e0d775a0270971.dnswclient@www.dnswatch.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=9A1FEEFF; url=https://cert.acad.bg/pgp-keys/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is Gnome2 not supported on the amd64 ARCH? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:28:03 -0000 On 01/03/11 08:45, fbsdmail@dnswatch.com wrote: > # # # TOP POSTING IS EVIL # # # >>> 2011-01-02 15:42, fbsdmail@dnswatch.com skrev: >>> <...> >>> >>>> Hello again, and thanks for your response. >>>> I commented it out after responding to your response, and >>>> it happily built. I just figured I'd use the CPUTYPE?= option to gain >>>> better amd64 profiling, but apparently it's only _really_ available >>>> for the i386 CPU's. I say that because I've always used that option >>>> when building on those ARCH types, and never ran into a problem. Oh >>>> well, hopefully sometime son, it'll be better supported on the amd64 - >>>> fingers crossed. :) >>>> >>>> Thanks again for taking the time to respond. >>>> >>>> >>>> --Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> I have an Intel CPU that's amd64 compatible, and I use CPUTYPE?=native, >>> which never gave me any problems (I use it for all builds, including >>> kernel and world). I can't say whether it works with AMD CPUs though. >>> Nor can I really say if it makes a difference, because I've never tried >>> without it. >>> >>> /Rolf >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64 >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> > On Sun, January 2, 2011 9:35 am, Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote: >> hw.model: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+ >> CPUTYPE?= athlon64 >> >> >> I've never encountered any CPUTYPE specific problems so far, and I have >> GNOME2 and almost 1000 ports compiled on my desktop, plus the OS itself. >> >> >> I wonder if "athlon-mp" is so different to be causing the problems >> you've encountered or if there was something else that got fixed >> coincidentally when you commented out CPUTYPE from make.conf. > > Greetings Luchesar, and thank you for your reply. > I've got a couple of other threads on the @stable list, and one > other on this one related to this. Last time I researched make(1) > and make.conf(5), the common consensus was that (open)ssl, and > possibly a couple of others were the only things that ever made > use of the flag. However, when I experimented heavily on older > CPU's, I discovered that CPUTYPE?= _did_ make a difference. In > some cases it simply made the difference for correctly recognizing > the CPU, in all cases, it added the "feature set" that that CPU > possessed - SSE, SSE2, 3DNow, etc... > So, I find myself inclined to make use of CPUTYPE?= whenever possible. > Problem is, I don't always keep up on gcc(1)'s changes/additions. > Which I think is the case here. My _guess_ is that they changed the > name(s) - however slightly, and I found out the "hard way". :-\ > Bottom line; I need to take the time, and find the difference(s) > from then<--to-->now to use it effectively. > > Thanks again for your reply. > > --Chris Hi Chris, Indeed, I was going to comment about those notes in the documentation as well. To be honest, I've always been lazy to do my own research in the FreeBSD's code -- it's rather typical for the documentation to lag behind the code, and that's understandable even for commercial projects. BTW, an interesting file to check is also /usr/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk. And that's why for the moment I'm a bit reluctant (probably naively) about using CPUTYPE=native -- it is understood by GCC itself, but bsd.cpu.mk "knows" nothing about it. Well, on amd64 it really does nothing more than to add "-march=${CPUTYPE}" to CFLAGS, which should be OK with "native", but it also seems to "describe" available CPU capabilities (e.g. mmx, sse, 3dnow) for the other mk files -- and that depends on the correct value, provided by CPUTYPE. I'm not sure this would work as expected with "native", but then again I might be quite wrong. In any case, I (and likely others) will really appreciate if you share your findings with the list -- and thank you for doing it so far. :) Cheers, Luchesar P.S. Oh, and, erm... sorry for that evil top posting... (blush)