Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:20:15 -0600
From:      "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>
To:        Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>
Cc:        Dung Patrick <dkt@digitalme.com>
Subject:   Re: [call for helpers!] Tuning for the Beaver Challenge
Message-ID:  <20040209232015.GE89781@over-yonder.net>
In-Reply-To: <xzpznbsxg5f.fsf@dwp.des.no>
References:  <1076348333.b793fda0dkt@digitalme.com> <xzpznbsxg5f.fsf@dwp.des.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 07:27:08PM +0100 I heard the voice of
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav, and lo! it spake thus:
> 
> CPU_FASTER_5X86_FPU is not likely to have any positive impact on
> performance, and fairly likely to render the system unbootable.

I would guess just from the name that this (and some similarly named
options) apply only to Cyrix 5x86 processors.  Somehow, I don't think
you'll run into too many of them in benchmarks these days.  Just a
hunch.


>    CPUTYPE ?= pentiumpro

I recall a thread somewhere recently about pentiumpro being decidedly
suboptimal for some new CPUs.  Although, on 4.x with the older version
of gcc, it may not matter.



-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/

"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
      haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040209232015.GE89781>