1 |
On 06 Mar 2003 12:19:22 +0000 |
2 |
Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Hello |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Today I saw in a gentoo cvs server email the following. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> 2003-03-05 Wednesday 11:01 method |
9 |
> |
10 |
> * sys-devel/gcc/: ChangeLog, gcc-3.2.2-r4.ebuild, |
11 |
> files/digest-gcc-3.2.2-r4: replace-flags "-march=pentium4" |
12 |
> "-march=pentium3" to fix bug #16867 |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Now, I realise that the pentium4 is prone to errors but I hope this |
15 |
> does not begin a spree of changes where -march=pentium4 flags will |
16 |
> automatically downgraded to -march=pentium3 by the ebuild or |
17 |
> otherwise. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I have used pentium4 for some time now with no problems whatsoever and |
20 |
> would like the raise the issue of whether downgrading of flags should |
21 |
> be manual and left to the user rather than being automatically |
22 |
> modified. A choice would be nice too. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Also, what exactly is responsible for pentium4 bugs? Is it gcc and is |
25 |
> there hope of this being resolved with future versions? And will |
26 |
> using pentium3 result in a noticeable decline in performance? |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
I use -march=pentium3, and my box is speedy (although haven't tried |
30 |
with pentium4 for some time). But then .. rather a bit slower than |
31 |
unstable? |
32 |
|
33 |
I am with you on this. I did only do the pentium4->pentium3 for some |
34 |
critical ebuilds like xfree and mozilla, as else we might miss if |
35 |
gcc actually gets it fixed. |
36 |
|
37 |
Lastly I do still consider fixing glibc, as it really (math tests, etc) |
38 |
break on -march=pentium4 :( |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
|
43 |
Martin Schlemmer |
44 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
45 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |