In <4cd2eddc.52790e0a.3014.0...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote: >Thank You for Your time and answer, Brad: >>Probably because, like the AMD (32 bit) builds, there was insufficient >>benefit to warrant all the extra work (to say nothing of storage space) >>to do it. > >Then. may You know why they have chosen i486 instead of i386?
glibc dropped support for i386 a few years back. There's some machine instructions that they are unable to implement certain locking primitives without, and they are no longer willing to do without that high-speed locking. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
