On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 04:50 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:43:32AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 16:38 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 10:27:55PM +0200, Andreas Thienemann wrote: > > > > > > > Several legacy i586 systems are used as routers and I'd hate to leave them > > > > on FC5. > > > > > > The buildsys was tweaked a few days ago, and 586 kernels have been popping out > > > since then. test2 should be fine. > > > > now to go a step further; cmov isn't actually a performance gain on any > > cpu sold in the last year or two. Why ship the i686 kernel at all over > > an i586 kernel? Why not ship ONLY a i586 kernel? > > This has crossed my mind, and I did some investigation on this a month or two ago. > You'd still want gcc to schedule instructions optimally for newer cpus > (-mtune-generic seems to handle this), yes absolutely; no doubt about that > but iirc adding -march=i586 somehow > affects the behaviour of -mtune in a negative way. hmmm that's a good question for the gcc guys... I'm actually surprised by this. Maybe -mtune=i686 ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
