Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:27:57 +0200 From: "Luchesar V. ILIEV" <luchesar.iliev@gmail.com> To: fbsdmail@dnswatch.com Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is Gnome2 not supported on the amd64 ARCH? Message-ID: <4D21EAFD.4020104@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <28cdac712efe4eff35e0d775a0270971.dnswclient@www.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D21EAFD.4020104>