On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 02:19:25AM +0100, Danny Pansters wrote:
On Friday 16 March 2007 01:04:51 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
I know that this has been discussed a few
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:21:33PM +0100, Jorn Argelo wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
Dan,
I know that this has been discussed a few times before, but IMO
running a slightly stripped down kernel (i.e. custom, not GENERIC)
actually proves to
On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 02:19:25AM +0100, Danny Pansters wrote:
On Friday 16 March 2007 01:04:51 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
me, too.
Of course it will speed up booting but then again how much time
does one spend
booting, compared to
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:19:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
Think its 686 (but really, leaving 486 and
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
I know that this has been discussed a few times before, but
IMO running a slightly stripped down kernel (i.e. custom, not
GENERIC) actually proves to be helpful in
On Friday 16 March 2007 01:04:51 Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Jorn Argelo wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
I know that this has been discussed a few times before, but
IMO running a slightly stripped down kernel (i.e.
Gary Kline wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:19:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:25:43PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Gary Kline wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:19:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
No problem. -funroll-loops might not buy you too much other than a few
less instructions overall
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
Second, is it safe to do a buildworld with -O3? If there are
stability concerns, I'll go with the default when I rebuild my
6.2
On Thu, March 15, 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
To check:
dmesg | grep CPU
Two examples (first one is a i686 and second one a i586)
CPU: Intel Celeron (902.05-MHz
Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
That depends on processor architecture rather than clock frequency. Have
a look at dmesg output - for example, Intel Celeron 400Mhz is a 686
On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
Think its 686 (but really, leaving 486 and 586 in isn't going to slow down
booting or anything!) I always
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
Think its 686 (but really, leaving 486 and 586 in isn't
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
Think its 686 (but really, leaving 486 and 586 in isn't
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:47:42AM +0100, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote:
Gary Kline wrote:
Two quick one for kernel and/or compiler wizards: first, is
a 400Mz processor considered a 586 (for my KERNELCONF file)?
That depends on processor architecture rather than clock frequency. Have
a
16 matches
Mail list logo
