Re: kernel broken using CPUTYPE and 2.95.4

[Hiten Pandya <hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> -On [20040510 22:12], David Rhodus (drhodus@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > Well we already have a mudge in for when people try to use -O3 on a
> > kernel build, I wonder if we should add this in too ?:-/ Saying that
> > even though I don't like messing around with the options a user has
> > specified.
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with you on that David, however in this specific
> case I just have to wonder if we should protect the users against
> themselves and us from the users.  Yes, I know, I should've known
> better, but what's the use in having CPUTYPE in make.conf if we _known_
> it will create binaries which cause strange problems to creep up?  Might
> as well just yank it and be done with the headache.
>
> Opinions on this?  Matt?

	I know I am not Matt (!) but you can't throw away the
	CPUTYPE option just because `p4' doesn't work, while things
	like `pentiumpro', `p6', `p3' and such work perfectly well.

	Pentium-4 is known to cause problems, this is the same
	in FreeBSD-land last time I checked.

> That is, until I get the compiler done... *whistles*

	You keep us waiting dammnit! *takes out whip* :-)

		-Hiten
		hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx