Is Gnome2 not supported on the amd64 ARCH?

[fbsdmail at dnswatch.com]

# # # TOP POSTING IS EVIL # # #
>> 2011-01-02 15:42, fbsdmail at dnswatch.com skrev:
>> <...>
>>
>>> Hello again, and thanks for your response.
>>> I commented it out after responding to your response, and
>>> it happily built. I just figured I'd use the CPUTYPE?= option to gain
>>> better amd64 profiling, but apparently it's only _really_ available
>>> for the i386 CPU's. I say that because I've always used that option
>>> when building on those ARCH types, and never ran into a problem. Oh
>>> well, hopefully sometime son, it'll be better supported on the amd64 -
>>> fingers crossed. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I have an Intel CPU that's amd64 compatible, and I use CPUTYPE?=native,
>>  which never gave me any problems (I use it for all builds, including
>> kernel and world). I can't say whether it works with AMD CPUs though.
>> Nor can I really say if it makes a difference, because I've never tried
>>  without it.
>>
>> /Rolf
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-amd64 at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
On Sun, January 2, 2011 9:35 am, Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote:
> hw.model: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+
> CPUTYPE?=	athlon64
>
>
> I've never encountered any CPUTYPE specific problems so far, and I have
> GNOME2 and almost 1000 ports compiled on my desktop, plus the OS itself.
>
>
> I wonder if "athlon-mp" is so different to be causing the problems
> you've encountered or if there was something else that got fixed
> coincidentally when you commented out CPUTYPE from make.conf.

Greetings Luchesar, and thank you for your reply.
 I've got a couple of other threads on the @stable list, and one
other on this one related to this. Last time I researched make(1)
and make.conf(5), the common consensus was that (open)ssl, and
possibly a couple of others were the only things that ever made
use of the flag. However, when I experimented heavily on older
CPU's, I discovered that CPUTYPE?= _did_ make a difference. In
some cases it simply made the difference for correctly recognizing
the CPU, in all cases, it added the "feature set" that that CPU
possessed - SSE, SSE2, 3DNow, etc...
So, I find myself inclined to make use of CPUTYPE?= whenever possible.
Problem is, I don't always keep up on gcc(1)'s changes/additions.
Which I think is the case here. My _guess_ is that they changed the
name(s) - however slightly, and I found out the "hard way". :-\
Bottom line; I need to take the time, and find the difference(s)
from then<--to-->now to use it effectively.

Thanks again for your reply.

--Chris


>
> Cheers,
> Luchesar
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
kern:
FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE amd64