On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:41:14 -0800
David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Anti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:28:46 -0800
> > Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Pentium 4 is definitely broken on 5.x. Perhaps, we should remove
> > > the footshooting.
> > >
> > > --- bsd.cpu.mk.orig Sat Mar 22 10:23:42 2003
> > > +++ bsd.cpu.mk Sat Mar 22 10:27:11 2003
> > > @@ -62,7 +62,9 @@
> > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "k5"
> > > _CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium
> > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "p4"
> > > -_CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium4
> > > +# XXX gcc 3.2.2 appears to generate bad code on FreeBSD 5.x
> > > +#_CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium4
> > > +_CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentiumpro
> > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "p3"
> > > _CPUCFLAGS = -march=pentium3
> > > . elif ${CPUTYPE} == "p2"
> >
> >
> > pentium3 would be better than pentiumpro on a p4 i think...
>
> You would think so, but in my (limited) testing on a P3, this does
> not appear to be the case with gcc3 in -CURRENT. Optimizing for a
> Ppro worked the best, IIRC.
yes but -current uses the closest cpu setting to the cputype you
choose, and in the case of pentium4 producing broken code the
obvious fallback would be pentium3... if the goal is optimal code
then use no higher than pentiumpro for any cputype as in -stable,
but that's more a policy decision than something to be changed in
a patch like this imo...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
