On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 04:49:55PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:32:26PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:49:44PM +0100, Sebastian Wilhelmi wrote: > > > > > > > > The file /usr/include/c++/3.2/i386-linux/bits/atomicity.h > > > > has code, which does not work on i386. It needs i486 or above. > > > > > > The comment in that file says: > > > > > > // Low-level functions for atomic operations: x86, x < 4 version -*- C++ > > > -*- > > > > > > Is that incorrect? Hmm, it's the same as the 486 version, so the > > > comment is wrong. > > > > > > This will be fixed in gcc 3.3 (at a performance penalty; we need to > > > think about providing the i486 version also). > > > > or we do think to drop i386 alltogether? How should this library be > > installed? Building can be done in a second libstdc++-v3 build dir > > with the compiler just built and -march=486 -mtune=585. > > To expand on Daniel's comment: libstdc++ has "dropped" i386, in the > sense of, "i386 has been folded in with the "any random crappy chip with > no special abilities" target". > > Debian already hurts the x86 users (IMHO) by giving them a compiler > targetted for processor which, I'd bet, is used by less than 2% of the > user base. This is just one more performace hit on top of all the others; > I really wouldn't worry about it unless/until the compiler is targeted > to something more useful, e.g., i486, i586, or (quelle suprise) i686, > and for those cases the atomic operations will be automatically corrected.
If it weren't for the disk/archivespace/maintenance/PITA cost I'd suggest binary-i686. Things being what they are, maybe we should poll for people interested in new versions of Debian on i386; I doubt we can drop 586, since I've seen uses of 'em recently... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer