DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-05
Re: kernel broken using CPUTYPE and 2.95.4
Why not just have something check for known working CPUTYPES and fail with
an error such as "Unsupported CPUTYPE: 'p4'. Use FORCE_CPUTYPE=YES to do it
anyway (but you really shouldn't)." If somebody wants to try it, they can,
but you gave them fair warning that they it's not a good idea.
Undergraduate, Computer Science
University of Washington
Public key: http://students.washington.edu/evantd/pgp-pub-key.txt
Key fingerprint = D321 FA24 4BDA F82D 53A9 5B27 7D15 5A4F 033F 887D
From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: kernel broken using CPUTYPE and 2.95.4
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:09:30 +0200
-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
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?
That is, until I get the compiler done... *whistles*
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7 9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/ | http://diary.in-nomine.org/
Everything comes to those who wait...
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!