Hello, On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:46:36 +0700 Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi :) > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 15:16, John Mahoney <jmahoney@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Just a heads up. Try not to top post here. See my comment inline. > > > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Alex John <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Thanks, I'll compile for P4 then. > > > > I was just thinking and realized the core2 may have been based off > > the p3 arch and the p4 was a dead end, but normally with intel you > > can compile for the LCD, but I may have lied this time. Also, I > > believe one is 32bit and the other is 64bit, but a 32 bit kernel > > will work on both. > > I think Core 2 is more like "almost new" arch....I bet it tends to be > closer to newer Xeon (according to related Kbuild message) Apparently Core 2 is similar to the Coppermine T in some ways (such as netburst) but I think that its new as well since it's the model for quads, i7's etc; > > > If you want to guarantee it works on both I would compile for 32bit > > i386, but feel free to have some fun. If you do compile with p4 > > post if it worked on the core2, I am sort of interested now. > > > > I suggest to start with i686 first, then work gradually up > Compiled a generic for i686 and it worked perfectly with both processors, but then my old gentoo instincts kicked in and I compiled two different versions. Cheers - Alex. _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
