On 2002-06-16 22:38 -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote: > > If only a few CPU's would benefit from the CPU-specific options, > > creating a table of CPU options for those few CPU's should be all the > > simpler. What I am I missing? > > IMHO, the performance benefits are so small, that it's best to not even > concern people with making cpu-specific kernels. > > CPU-specific compiler options might actually make a difference, but those > tend to create kernels that crash.
Or do not work flawlessly across hardware upgrades. I have an installation here at home that has gone through many hardware upgrades (motherboard, cpu, or other vital parts) and has worked like a charm, compiling worlds since 3.2-RELEASE from source. Having a userland or kernel that is 486-specific would have been a major PITA when I changed the cpu to a Pentium, with a new PITA waiting at the next corner, when I switched to a Celeron, etc. I feel that it's very nice that "uname -p" and "uname -m" still print "i386" in their output :-] - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
