On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:29:58AM -0300, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wr=
> > > ote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >=20
> > > > Is there anything against adding support for
> > > > k6-3 to the just added CPUTYPE mechanism? :)
> > > > My little machine feels left out. Hehehhe
> > > > I made a simple patch to etc/defaults/make.conf
> > > > and share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk
> > > > Should I have touched anything else?
> > > >=20
> > > > Regards,
> > > >=20
> > > > ps: I think this can be MFCed asap (even during the
> > > > veil period) since it is very straightforward.
> > >
> > > Looks fine to me. I'll commit it.
> >
> > I see no reason for it. k6-3 is essentially k6-2 core with extra cache on
> > chip. Threre are no other significant differencies in the features or
> > instruction set.
>
> Not even to mention that there is such a beast as k6-2+....
>
> I would suggest to rename k6-2 into k6/3dnow (similarly to what we have for
> i586/mmx) and put a note saying that k6/3dnow should be used for k6-2/k6-2+/k6-3.
k6-2 is already over-engineered. The only difference between it and k6
is 3dnow, but neither gcc nor any source files support 3dnow (now :-).
OTOH, bsd.cpu.mk is too under-engineered to support any compiler except
gcc. It unconditionally translates FreeBSD-specific names like k6-2 to
gcc-specific flags like -march=k6.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
