Mike Gilbert <floppym <at> gentoo.org> writes:
> > CPU_FLAGS_X86="mmx sse sse2 sse3 ssse3 sse4 sse4_1 sse4_2 sse4a ssse3 \ > > mmx mmxext xop 3dnowprefetch 3dnow 3dnowext aes avx avx2 fma3 fma4 \ > > padlock popcnt " > Exactly how did you "surmise" your list? cat /usr/portage/profiles/desc/cpu_flags_x86.desc which is a subset of the CPU flags found in /proc/cpuinfo > > What would be cool, is if the devs took the entire list of cpu flags > > from proc/cpuinfo and piped it thru a simple validation script (equery > > hasuse) to generate the maximum flags to set by default for a given cpu. > That's exactly what cpuinfo2cpuflags-x86 does. So the list given by the current script does not include all of the flags listed in //usr/portage/profiles/desc/cpu_flags_x86.desc That's the explanation I was looking for. The only thing I can think of is the extra flags are not every used in current packages found in the portage tree. I wonder if gcc(++) might could make use of those flags. I'm not making a statement, but framing a question. But I would think that is the reason for the subset of /proc/cpuinfo that forms the flags listed in : /usr/portage/profiles/desc/cpu_flags_x86.desc hth, James
