I have to concur with Mr. Champigny on this one. I've always been taught
that template configuration files should be lowest common denominator, so
that those with a clue can wring out the performance, and those without
clues don't waste the time of those with. Of course, on the other hand, I
can't imagine too many clueless Alpha owners out there.
> Then it's an accident waiting to happen. Distributions will use
> the host.def shipped with XFree86 and you'll only get a bug report.
> I'm just trying to save you some work. It's a 1 byte change, sheesh.
>
> -Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Hourihane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:56 AM
> To: Champigny, Michael
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] cut-and-paste bug in host.def
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 09:42:38AM -0400, Champigny, Michael wrote:
> > While we are on this topic, the flags for Alpha are too restrictive.
> > It should be the more conservative "-mcpu=ev5". By setting it to ev6,
> > older Alpha's will not be able to run the compiled code. ev5 is chosen
> > since it will allow the compiler to schedule instructions better on
> > EV5 and greater processors, while remaining backwards compatible with
> > older EV4 and EV45 processors. BTW, the Mesa build procedure handles
this
> > correctly.
> >
> Like Gareth said already - it's a set of default's YOU SHOULD set yourself
!
>
> Alan.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dri-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
