Is Gnome2 not supported on the amd64 ARCH?

Luchesar V. ILIEV luchesar.iliev at
Mon Jan 3 15:28:03 UTC 2011

On 01/03/11 08:45, fbsdmail at wrote:
> # # # TOP POSTING IS EVIL # # #
>>> 2011-01-02 15:42, fbsdmail at 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 mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe at"
> 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

Hi Chris,

Indeed, I was going to comment about those notes in the documentation as
well. To be honest, I've always been lazy to do my own research in the
FreeBSD's code -- it's rather typical for the documentation to lag
behind the code, and that's understandable even for commercial projects.

BTW, an interesting file to check is also /usr/share/mk/ And
that's why for the moment I'm a bit reluctant (probably naively) about
using CPUTYPE=native -- it is understood by GCC itself, but
"knows" nothing about it. Well, on amd64 it really does nothing more
than to add "-march=${CPUTYPE}" to CFLAGS, which should be OK with
"native", but it also seems to "describe" available CPU capabilities
(e.g. mmx, sse, 3dnow) for the other mk files -- and that depends on the
correct value, provided by CPUTYPE. I'm not sure this would work as
expected with "native", but then again I might be quite wrong.

In any case, I (and likely others) will really appreciate if you share
your findings with the list -- and thank you for doing it so far. :)


P.S. Oh, and, erm... sorry for that evil top posting... (blush)

More information about the freebsd-amd64 mailing list