| 1 |
On January 20, 2015 12:47:03 AM PST, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>So, you're telling me that if you have a list of 90 cpu extensions, you |
| 3 |
>will from time to time open that list to see if there is a 91st one |
| 4 |
>added ? I think most people won't even notice, at best they'll look for |
| 5 |
>the changelog. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
No, actually, I’m advocating the exact opposite. I’m saying that, as long as the list file is kept up to date, then I will look at those 90 flags when I first install and never again. If a 91st flag appears some day, then as long as the file was maintained as I described in an earlier message (i.e. flags are added as soon as manufacturers announce features), I already know I can reliably ignore the new flag. After all, if the flag didn’t exist when I installed the system, then my CPU must necessarily not have that feature—unless CPUs are in the habit of sprouting new instructions after you buy them! |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>Isn't it better to have a script, e.g. in gentoo-x86/scripts (that |
| 10 |
>would be the first of this kind here I think), that would |
| 11 |
>"parse" /proc/cpuinfo and output 'CPU_FLAGS_...="..."' so that for a |
| 12 |
>first install you can simply send its output to make.conf and, if you |
| 13 |
>are paranoid, can use it to check if this has changed in a postsync |
| 14 |
>hook ? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I see having a script to select flag values as orthogonal to when the flag values need to be looked at. I also agree that having a script would be a good thing. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Christopher Head |
Archives