Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> ia64 turns out to be confusing too; it's Itanium but the main 64-bit
> architecture on PCs is now amd64. Intel calls this EM64T. The
> debian-amd64 list gets occasional queries about trying to install the
> ia64 distribution on amd64 machines.
Can you complete the line of r
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> I think we should at least consider to rename, since the current i386 seems
> to cause a lot of confusion. When even DDs confuse the meaning how can we
> expect the user to understand?
Who is confused?
> Most people know instanta
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 06, Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>So I'll ask again. What would be the process for rename i386 to x86 or ia32?
>
> Complex enough that it will never happen, so please do not waste more
> time over this.
Thanks for the answer. Now everyone else can drop
On Nov 06, Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'll ask again. What would be the process for rename i386 to x86 or ia32?
Complex enough that it will never happen, so please do not waste more
time over this.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Ken Bloom wrote:
>
>
>>Bastian Venthur wrote:
>>
>>>Nick Jacobs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I am a little bit confused. Does Via/C3 need strict 386-instructions
> or does it play nicely with the current status, i.e. 486 instruction
> set?
A standard sarge install works perfectly on my brand-new VIA C3.
Cheers, WB
--
T
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Andrew M.A. Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Up until the change in GCC which effectively
> > changed Debian compatibility to 486 processors and above, Debian
> > supported the 386 processor. There was a lot of talking o
Andrew M.A. Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Up until the change in GCC which effectively
> changed Debian compatibility to 486 processors and above, Debian
> supported the 386 processor. There was a lot of talking on the lists
> at the time and it was agreed that this was a bad situation a
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 10:35:51AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>
> I think we should at least consider to rename, since the current i386 seems
> to cause a lot of confusion. When even DDs confuse the meaning how can we
> expect the user to understand?
>
> Most people know instantanously what
Ken Bloom wrote:
> Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Nick Jacobs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>>You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
>>>significant amount of work should be done to restore
>>>support for a processor that has not been manufactured
>>>for 10 years? While s
Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Nick Jacobs wrote:
>
>
>>In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
>>significant amount of work should be done to restore
>>support for a processor that has not been manufactured
>>for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance
At Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:11:56 -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>
> I think i386 debian arch is not suitable anymore for real-i386 machines
> (self-experience), I mean, it's not suitable even for a Pentium 133 with
> 32 Mb RAM. Ok, I know it works, but it's a waste of memory and CPU
> cycles to run a full
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:38:51AM -0800, Nick Jacobs said
> In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> significant amount of work should be done to restore
> support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> for 10 years? While slightly degrading pe
Em Qui, 2005-11-03 às 21:39 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> At Thu, 3 Nov 2005 02:38:51 -0800 (PST), Nick Jacobs wrote:
> > You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a significant amount of
> > work should be done to restore support for a processor that has not
> > been manufactured for 10 years
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 02:38 -0800, Nick Jacobs a écrit :
> In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> significant amount of work should be done to restore
> support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> for 10 years? While slightly degradin
At Thu, 3 Nov 2005 02:38:51 -0800 (PST), Nick Jacobs wrote:
>
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a significant amount of
> work should be done to restore support for a processor that has not
> been manufactured for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance
> for the 99.9% of x8
Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Maybe renaming Debians "i386" into something more accurate like "x86" or
> even "IA32" (in consistency with IA64) would suppress discussions like
> this in the future?
Good idea :-)
--
ksig --random|
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
Nick Jacobs wrote:
> In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> significant amount of work should be done to restore
> support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
> the 99.9% of x86 us
In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not been manufactured
for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
the 99.9% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or
bet
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
> > In gcc-3.4 and gcc-4.0, these functions have been replaced with
out-of-line
> > functions, implemented in libstdc++.
>
> Do these out-of-line functions avoid the LOCK prefix overhead on
> non-SMP systems or, at least, non-threaded programs (for example,
> using some
* Nathanael Nerode:
> In gcc-3.4 and gcc-4.0, these functions have been replaced with out-of-line
> functions, implemented in libstdc++.
Do these out-of-line functions avoid the LOCK prefix overhead on
non-SMP systems or, at least, non-threaded programs (for example,
using some dynamic linker ma
I sent a message about this earlier, but it seems to have gotten lost.
> On Saturday 08 October 2005 22:38, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Disgustingly, I worked out that we could have revived real i386 support
> > for etch thanks to changes in gcc-3.4 and gcc-4.0 which nobody bothered
> > to advertis
Frans Pop wrote:
> Do you mean that the security-flawed kernel patch would not have been
> needed?
Yes. For those interested, the full story is as follows.
gcc-3.3 contained inline functions in the C++ header atomicity.h -- included
by nearly every C++ program, and thus part of the binary inte
23 matches
Mail list logo
