Re: P4 compile options

From: Dave Jones (davej@codemonkey.org.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 04:26:59 EST

Next message: Andrey Panin: "Re: [Q] is framebuffer console code in 2.5.4x functional ?"
Previous message: Vamsi Krishna S .: "[PATCH] kprobes for 2.5.48-bk3"
In reply to: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: P4 compile options"
Next in thread: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: P4 compile options"
Reply: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: P4 compile options"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:22:53AM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > This is already done in 2.5. (Well, the -march anyways)
> I'd say benefits of compiling p4-optimized code are questionable.

On what grounds ?

> Are you sure your kernel will run faster, not slower?
> Benchmark numbers? Or it's only warm and fuzzy feeling?

The kernel mailing list archives are that way --->

> Warm and fuzzy feelings of kernels compiled for very new processors
> quickly disappear when you try to boot e.g. 486 with them ;)

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"

Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrey Panin: "Re: [Q] is framebuffer console code in 2.5.4x functional ?"
Previous message: Vamsi Krishna S .: "[PATCH] kprobes for 2.5.48-bk3"
In reply to: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: P4 compile options"
Next in thread: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: P4 compile options"
Reply: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: P4 compile options"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:39 EST