On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:58:50PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wes Peters writes:
: Peter Jeremy wrote:
: [1] I don't think there's a lot of `build once, install on lots of
: different hardware', though I could be wrong.
:
: Most certainly wrong for those
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kris Kennaway writes:
: Well, these are both 686-class machines so it doesn't strictly apply
: to what we were talking about.
The build machine is a 686, but the targets are {486,586 and 686}.
The laptop is a 586...
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
I do plenty of build once and run on multiple machines. My biggest machine is a
PII 40MHZ where I compile the world and kernels for a 486 laptop and P-60
Router/Firewall. I would not really want to compile the world on these slower
machines over nfs.
For my case, I guess I could rebuild only
Jim Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do plenty of build once and run on multiple machines. My biggest
machine is a PII 40MHZ where I compile the world and kernels for a 486
laptop and P-60 Router/Firewall. I would not really want to compile the
world on these slower machines over nfs.
Peter Jeremy wrote:
[1] I don't think there's a lot of `build once, install on lots of
different hardware', though I could be wrong.
Most certainly wrong for those using FreeBSD for embedded devices. I,
for instance, build on nice, fast Athlons, then install in devices
ranging from
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wes Peters writes:
: Peter Jeremy wrote:
: [1] I don't think there's a lot of `build once, install on lots of
: different hardware', though I could be wrong.
:
: Most certainly wrong for those using FreeBSD for embedded devices. I,
: for instance, build on
On 2001-Feb-11 13:02:43 -0800, Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010211 12:52] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Is it possible to have multiple ASM cores and use the appropriate
routines? Or must it all be
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:57:57PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I'm sure something similar would be possible with FreeBSD, but I don't
have the expertise to actually implement it. I'm less certain how
much of a win this would be in the general scheme of things: Apart
from special cases (like
Updated patch now available at the same location. Changes:
* Document the MACHINE_CPU types which are currently used
* Make NOPERL mutually exclusive with OpenSSL ASM and document it
* Teach make(1) about MACHINE_CPU and provide sensible defaults for
i386 and alpha.
* Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010211 12:32] wrote:
Updated patch now available at the same location. Changes:
* Document the MACHINE_CPU types which are currently used
* Make NOPERL mutually exclusive with OpenSSL ASM and document it
* Teach make(1) about MACHINE_CPU and provide
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Looks awesome, someone complained that Linux was able to maintain
an order of magnitude more SSL connections than FreeBSD, since you
say this gives us a 3-5x speed up, I'd really like to see it committed
and ported to -stable
* Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010211 12:52] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Looks awesome, someone complained that Linux was able to maintain
an order of magnitude more SSL connections than FreeBSD, since you
say this gives us a 3-5x speed
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:02:43PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010211 12:52] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Looks awesome, someone complained that Linux was able to maintain
an order of magnitude more SSL
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:28:02PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Updated patch now available at the same location. Changes:
* Document the MACHINE_CPU types which are currently used
Actually, it occurs to me that this will be useful for ports as
well. Currently some of them have nonstandard
14 matches
Mail list logo
