On Thu, 2003-08-07 07:58:01 +0200, Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Am I wrong or did we, "forced" because we wanted to be binary compatible > > to some major distributions, just follow others and doing optimization > > just as they did? > > You are wrong. There are two versions of atomicity.h, one for i486+, > and the other for i386+ (at the time the other distributors released > their compilers, there was only the i486+ version, and it was assumed > to work for i386+, but didn't). The two versions are
So we now suffer from a former bug?
> binary-incompatible, providing the same feature using entirely
> different data structures. As everybody else is using the i486+
> version (given that no other version existed when they released their
> systems), Debian needs to follow, for binary compatibility.
Debian is constantly recompiling it's packages (at least for unstable),
and I assume other distributors are doing basically the same. As we
already had (official) ABI changes (C++ comes to mind again) and where
now a (hopefully correct) i386 version is available, can't we all
(Debian and non-Debian) do as we did it the last time (TM)?
However, thanks a lot for your explanation, I was under the impression
that it was exactly the other way around (i386 version first, then i486
version).
After all argueing/ranting, there seem to be two outcomings. Either have
an own i386 distro or work on the emulator (for 2.6.x). I've started
with the emulator, but it doesn't work yet.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));
pgpoGMmMFCvLj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
