home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!camcus!tjrc1
- From: tjrc1@cus.cam.ac.uk (T.J.R. Cutts)
- Subject: Re: Linux 0.99 FPU question
- Message-ID: <1992Dec19.232254.27217@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Keywords: LINUX, FPU
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk
- Organization: U of Cambridge, England
- References: <1992Dec18.000355.18823@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <89Rz03zHc40w00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1grrfpINN702@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:22:54 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1grrfpINN702@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>, probreak@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (James Michael Chacon) writes
- |>
- |> I have a 486-33 running 0.99 right now. I could have sworn I didn't compile
- |> in the FPU support. I will try recompiling and get back to everyone about
- |> this. Otherwise the kernel runs fine and I have had no problems.
- |>
- |> James
-
- I also have a 486/33; this is my 0.99 story:
-
- I got the most recent SLS two days ago when by crass stupidity I managed to
- destroy my Linux setup. I took the opportunity to basically set everything up
- afresh, including putting everything on one 95Mb extended filesystem. I also got
- the sources for 0.99, because I needed to recompile it with UK keyboard
- definitions. I compiled without SCSI or FPU emulation. I also added -m486 to
- the CFLAGS line in the Makefile.
-
- The entire compilation took 11 minutes (gloat at the horror stories of >15 hour
- compilations :-) ), and the result seems to be a considerably smaller kernel than
- the standard SLS release, though I guess that's hardly surprising. Whatever; the
- recompilation seems to have worked perfectly. Try the -m486 option, if you
- hadn't done that before.
-
- -- Tim Cutts /~\ ----
- ( ) / \
- Sugarmice on a skateboard / \/ \
- / O \
- / \
- \____________________================
- -===========================-
- O O
-