15.09.2020 9:42, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> I tried that on my workstation (dual Xeon, lots of RAM) but couldn't get
>> it to compile for i586 - various things kept bailing out.
Note that I use multiple WITHOUT_XXX knobs documented in src.conf(5) to
decrease both
build time and size of resulting
14.09.2020 12:08, Charles Lecklider via freebsd-stable wrote:
> On 2020-09-14 04:41, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> Build time for modern FreeBSD version is too gross and needs way too much
>> memory,
>> so I stopped building image for my i586 hardware "in place" quite long ago.
>
> It would take
On 2020-09-14 04:41, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Build time for modern FreeBSD version is too gross and needs way too much
> memory,
> so I stopped building image for my i586 hardware "in place" quite long ago.
It would take about a week to compile, but since it was stable <11.4 I
didn't really
14.09.2020 4:30, Charles Lecklider via freebsd-stable wrote:
> On 2020-09-01 03:20, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> CPU: Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS (499.91-MHz 586-class CPU)
>> Origin="AuthenticAMD" Id=0x5a2 Family=0x5 Model=0xa Stepping=2
>> Features=0x88a93d
>> AMD
On 2020-09-01 03:20, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> CPU: Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS (499.91-MHz 586-class CPU)
> Origin="AuthenticAMD" Id=0x5a2 Family=0x5 Model=0xa Stepping=2
> Features=0x88a93d
> AMD Features=0xc040
>
> Of course, its NanoBSD image is built with
01.09.2020 6:50, Charles Lecklider via freebsd-stable wrote:
> On 2020-08-31 21:51, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
>> Given that the hardware notes
>> https://www.freebsd.org/releases/11.4R/hardware.html#proc-i386
>> explicitely claim 80486 compatibility, I'd guess this was not a
>> consciuous
On 2020-08-31 21:51, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> Given that the hardware notes
> https://www.freebsd.org/releases/11.4R/hardware.html#proc-i386
> explicitely claim 80486 compatibility, I'd guess this was not a
> consciuous decision but a blunder which wasn't caught
Hmm I'd assumed that
On 2020-08-31 22:59, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.1R/relnotes.html section 11.1 discusses
> the topic
> in context of upcoming FreeBSD 13.
And that makes sense - 12.x EOL is a few years out.
> There was some discussion on the topic in the freebsd-arch mailing
01.09.2020 1:00, Charles Lecklider via freebsd-stable wrote:
> Having just trashed my dual Pentium 233 MMX by installing 11.4 I went
> digging to find the cause - and I found it.
>
> As you can see from objdump below, clearly a decision was made that 11.4
> would no longer support anything
On 2020-08-31 21:54, Warner Losh wrote:
> The default is to compile for i686.
That does seem to be the case for 11.4, but that wasn't the case for
11.3, and I cannot find an announcement for that change anywhere.
Had I seen one ...
> However, you can still roll your own if you need anything
## Warner Losh (i...@bsdimp.com):
> The default is to compile for i686.
That's really not obvious from the obvious documentation.
Both Hardware Notes and the Handbook ("2.2. Minimum Hardware Requirements")
state support for 486 and up, but there's no hint that you had to
roll you own
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:51 PM Christoph Moench-Tegeder
wrote:
> ## Charles Lecklider via freebsd-stable (freebsd-stable@freebsd.org):
>
> > As you can see from objdump below, clearly a decision was made that 11.4
> > would no longer support anything before a i686.
>
> Given that the hardware
## Charles Lecklider via freebsd-stable (freebsd-stable@freebsd.org):
> As you can see from objdump below, clearly a decision was made that 11.4
> would no longer support anything before a i686.
Given that the hardware notes
https://www.freebsd.org/releases/11.4R/hardware.html#proc-i386
Having just trashed my dual Pentium 233 MMX by installing 11.4 I went
digging to find the cause - and I found it.
As you can see from objdump below, clearly a decision was made that 11.4
would no longer support anything before a i686.
Ignoring for a moment the wisdom of making breaking changes
14 matches
Mail list logo
