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 |