[Freemint-list] Three CPU targets for *everything*

[Jo Even Skarstein]

On lø., 2017-02-11 at 18:49 +1000, Miro Kropáček wrote:
>         My opinion is that such changes is exactly what should be
>         discussed
>         here.
> ... and that's exactly the reason why I'm posting it here. ;-) The
> link, if you look closely, is a pull request, i.e. source code for the
> proposed change. Which is, on the contrary, very unsuitable for this
> list. See? Everything makes perfect sense. :-)

You miss the point. Wouldn't the correct sequence of events first be to
suggest the change, discuss it and then implement it?


>         - Why is the 040 build considered useless?
> Ah, OK. There's the AB040, sorry. I will add it to the KERNELDEF's
> comment.

What about the Milan040 and Hades040? The AB does not need special
attention in the kernel, the generic 040 build has always worked. If I
understand the 040/060 merge correctly, shouldn't all of these machines
- AB040 included - be able to run the 040/060 kernel?
>         
> Milan see above, the rest - yes. mintloader decides whether to load
> min4060.prg, mintara.prg or mintmil.prg. For mint000.prg and
> mint030.prg there's no need for mintloader but it will make things
> much cleaner in my forthcoming work.

So basically this change is to improve mintloader? Can I still put
mint.prg in the autofolder? After all, my Milan only runs exactly one
kernel.
>         
> I hope it's clearer now, in fact, it's not very significant change.
> But I'm pretty sure same as I was a strong believer in "a cpu
> optimised kernel for every possible hardware" 10 years ago, there may
> be people with the same opinion now.

My experience is that optimizing for the 040 or 060 does not result in
measurable increase in performance compared to 020-060. The quality of
the code is what matters.

Jo Even