Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:25:16 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: x86 boot code build Message-ID: <506E996C.60203@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <506E6CDA.4080507@FreeBSD.org> References: <506C385C.3020400@FreeBSD.org> <506DEB4C.5020508@andric.com> <506E6CDA.4080507@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-10-05 07:15, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 04/10/2012 23:02 Dimitry Andric said the following: >> Well, do we still officially support any real i386 machines? If so, we >> should still use -march=i386 for the boot code. Otherwise, let's start >> using -march=i486 explicitly. > As I mentioned earlier, the only difference for boot code is use of 'leave' > instruction. I don't think -march=i486 buys us much, if anything, except for > "coolness factor" (i486 is "cooler" than i386). On the other hand it makes > binaries larger. So... Yes, the boot loader is a special case anyway. If -march=i386 makes the binary just a little bit smaller, let's use that. At least then the used flags will be consistent across the i386 and amd64 builds.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?506E996C.60203>