DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-05
Re: kernel broken using CPUTYPE and 2.95.4
Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
-On [20040510 22:12], David Rhodus (drhodus@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Well we already have a mudge in for when people try to use -O3 on a
kernel build, I wonder if we should add this in too ?:-/ Saying that
even though I don't like messing around with the options a user has
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that David, however in this specific
case I just have to wonder if we should protect the users against
themselves and us from the users. Yes, I know, I should've known
better, but what's the use in having CPUTYPE in make.conf if we _known_
it will create binaries which cause strange problems to creep up? Might
as well just yank it and be done with the headache.
Opinions on this? Matt?
I know I am not Matt (!) but you can't throw away the
CPUTYPE option just because `p4' doesn't work, while things
like `pentiumpro', `p6', `p3' and such work perfectly well.
Pentium-4 is known to cause problems, this is the same
in FreeBSD-land last time I checked.
That is, until I get the compiler done... *whistles*
You keep us waiting dammnit! *takes out whip* :-)