Hi Mark, by now my second test-run was also succesful. so it seems you were absolutely right. thank you very much for the hint. > On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:28:35PM +0200, Heiko Schaefer wrote: > > the thread i found in -current archives suggested that these flags work > > around an amd-specific issue. now you say that a p4-based machine also > > needs them to run stable. > > No, it's the other way around. It's an Intel bug, which also went into AMD > products. > > It is also in the PIII, but because it is so subtle it was never triggered. that sounds just too weird ... but i see %) > > i am wondering more and more: why are these options not in GENERIC ?!? > > ..if someone knows what he's doing he can always throw them out again. > > Because it is not (yet0 officially recognized. argh. i would like it to be understood that i (and probably many other people like me) will come here, pester important developers, bind resources - and generally lose faith in freebsd - without these options in GENERIC. in fact, personally i would now say that the system without those options should not be released as 5.1 - the trouble i've experienced shouldn't be default in a freebsd release. > Terry mentioned that he explained it to Bosco, and that he had a patch to > work around it in a different way. But that was from November, time has > passed since then. a nice workaround would be great, of course. assuming terry knows what he's doing, i'm sure such code would be preferrable to turning on these options by default. but until then, turning them on sounds like the safest bet to me. i'd sacrifice some speed for reliability anyday. and so far i felt that freebsd always had that philosophy. Heiko -- Free Software. Why put up with inferior code and antisocial corporations? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.htmlReceived on Thu May 08 2003 - 07:28:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:07 UTC