* Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011213 22:17] wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 03:23:28PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > >
> > > There are many effects that could cause this, for instance if FreeBSD
> > > manages to align things differently in relation to the CPU cache you
> > > could get some very interesting waste of time that way.
> > >
> > > Based on the data you show me, I can't really say that something is
> > > wrong or right either way.
> >
> > One thing that Linux does that we do not do is that they have different
> > versions of libc compiled specifically for different cpu types, and at
> > boot time set the correct paths. eg: /lib/i386/libc.so.6.whatever
> >
> > This means that Linux's glibc is using an i686 optimized bzero(), but
> > the FreeBSD one is using an i386 optimized bzero().
>
> This could easily be hung off CPUTYPE like we do for the asm code in
> OpenSSL, right?
That's not the point, you're proposing a static configuration
which i honestly don't like. What makes more sense is to
teach the dynamic linker to look for archetecture specific
subdirectories in order to dynamically link in a shared object
more suited to the running CPU, not the CPU it was compiled on.
--
-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
