Re: kernel broken using CPUTYPE and 2.95.4

[Kris Kennaway <kkenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2004-05-11, Hiten Pandya <hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>>>specified.
>> 
>> 
>> 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.

Not since the import of gcc 3.3.x earlier this year.

Kris