Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] New computer and Gentoo
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:13:47
Message-Id: 1311253852.29724.19.camel@moriah
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] New computer and Gentoo by Florian Philipp
1 On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 11:21 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote:
2 > Am 21.07.2011 10:57, schrieb Pandu Poluan:
3 > > -original message-
4 > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] New computer and Gentoo
5 > > From: Bill Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au>
6 > > Date: 2011-07-21 12:54
7 > >
8 > >> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 06:26 +0100, Mick wrote:
9 > [...]
10 > >> Ive just stumbled on something weird with march=native:
11 > >>
12
13 >
14 > I'd like to see a reference for this claim. -march=native doesn't do
15 > more than set -march=core2 and some other optimizations for cache size
16 > etc. This should be no more troublesome than mixing code compiled with
17
18 unfortunately this is now my main machine so I cant fiddle too much with
19 it! It would mean going back to the E4600 and comparing march=prescott,
20 march=native then fitting the E6600 and checking march=native and
21 march=core2. What I cant find is a reference to how it works out what
22 native is? - lookup-table, checking the flags in /proc/cpuinfo or what?
23
24 Ive now rolled back (that is recompiled) the majority of packages so now
25 I can keep working while it does an emerge -e world.
26
27 I would have thought the two intel processors would be close enough that
28 it would be just a performance hit and not segfaults, but the machine is
29 now working reliably so thats proof enough for me. What I am having
30 difficulty with is that packages compiled with native should have been a
31 closer match to the cpu so why was it those packages (asterisk, glibc
32 and some random others cause problems.
33
34 BillK

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] New computer and Gentoo Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net>