Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 07:05:12 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove ENABLE_SSE option from i386 and pc98 Message-ID: <20050703065051.V2554@epsplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20050702072952.GB26276@ip.net.ua> References: <20050701111103.GA48039@frontfree.net> <20050702054115.GA73667@frontfree.net> <20050702072952.GB26276@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 01:41:15PM +0800, Xin LI wrote: >> (re@ has been removed to reduce their mail load) >> >> Seems I need to have more sleep before sending patches... Here it >> is. >> > No, you want to unifdef(1) it in all sources, i.e.: > > /sys/conf/options.i386 > /sys/conf/options.pc98 > ... unifdef(1) is even less suitable than usual for removing ifdefs. Normally the main problem with unifdef(1) is that it mangles the vertical whitespace, but for CPU_ENABLE_SSE the ifdefs are tangled so they all need to be adjusted manually in a context-specific way, and the correct untangling isn't clear. The current condition for configuring SSE is normally "#ifdef I686_CPU" after compile-time untangling, but SSE doesn't really depend on 686'ness so the condition shouldn't be written that way in the source code. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050703065051.V2554>