On 12/12/2012 01:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
I believe it has been a very long time since any manufacturers made a
pure 386 chip.
I believe embedded 386 production ceased in 2007.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their
On 19/12/2012 23:32, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I also couldn't find any strong indication that one could purchase
VHDL or an IP module to build an i386dx class System on Chip.
I don't think this would be one to worry about. The x86 architecture
would be massively inefficient to implement in any
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:51:29PM +0100, David Brown wrote:
Is there much to be gained from keeping 486 support - or
alternatively, is there much to be gained by dropping it at the same
time?
In practice, there is very little difference betweeen 486 and Pentium
for code what will be
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Joel Sherrill
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com wrote:
My primary concern centers whether any 386 w/o fpu IP cores or space hardened
i386dx/sx or 486sx CPUs are impacted. These could be used in new designs.
This also eliminates gcc from use on any older embedded x86
On 12/19/2012 4:13 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Joel Sherrill
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com wrote:
My primary concern centers whether any 386 w/o fpu IP cores or space hardened
i386dx/sx or 486sx CPUs are impacted. These could be used in new designs.
This also
On 12/12/2012 11:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Andris Pavenis andris.pave...@iki.fi wrote:
On 12/12/2012 11:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the
The official DJGPP triplet is for i586, not i386. I don't mind
djgpp-wise if we deprecate i386, as long as we keep i586. Anyone
still using djgpp for i386 can dig out old versions from the archives :-)
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Linux support for i386 has been removed. Should we do the same for GCC?
FWIW, glibc hasn't really supported i386 for several years (at least with
the Linux kernel; I don't know about Hurd), since NPTL requires atomic
operations that i386 doesn't
My primary concern centers whether any 386 w/o fpu IP cores or space hardened
i386dx/sx or 486sx CPUs are impacted. These could be used in new designs.
This also eliminates gcc from use on any older embedded x86 boards w/o fpu.
RTEMS still supports these but depends on gcc as the foundation.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius
ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 12/14/2012 10:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
Hi,
RTEMS still supports the i386, and
On 12/15/2012 12:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
If you want a port to be live show that it is live by posting regular
testresults to gcc-testresults.
Not all of this world is Linux nor backed by large teams at
companies :) We simply do not have the resources do to this.
But that's the
Hi,
Thanks for the fast response!
So to keep an architecture supported by GCC, we would need to:
Three or more times a year preferably either during OR after stage3
1. use the SVN version of gcc,
2. patch with an RTEMS patch,
3. use ./contrib/test_summary and pipe the output to a shell.
4.
On 12/15/2012 12:32 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the fast response!
So to keep an architecture supported by GCC, we would need to:
Three or more times a year preferably either during OR after
stage3
1. use the SVN version of gcc, 2. patch with an RTEMS patch, 3. use
I am on travel and answering from my phone so don't remember all the exact
dates and PRs.
I did test i386-rtems in the past few months but it had a build breakage and I
filed a PR. That issue was resolved but at that point about 1/4 of the rtems
targets failed to compile. I filed PRs but
On 12/15/2012 07:02 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I did test i386-rtems in the past few months but it had a build breakage and I
filed a PR. That issue was resolved but at that point about 1/4 of the rtems
targets failed to compile.
You likely are referring to
Quoting Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com:
On 12/13/2012 04:53 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Quoting Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com:
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years
On 12/14/2012 10:03 AM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Well, the Intel 80486sx did not have an FPU either, while the 80486dx
did have one. From the Pentium (i586) onwards all Intel x86 CPUs have
been equipped with an FPU, so not having an FPU would fit in with being
compatible with i486 but not the
On 13/12/12 11:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC for future releases so there's no reason
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Sun/Oracle has never, to my knowledge used GCC as it's primary compiler.
I believe they have (early solaris 10), but that was on x86_64, not sparc
(which is the one in the primary platform list).
--
Marc Glisse
Hi,
RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still in use.
Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact RTEMS ability to support the i386.
As Steven Bosscher said, the benefits are small, and the impact would be
serious for RTEMS i386 users.
Thanks!
Cynthia Rempel
On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
Hi,
RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still
in use. Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact RTEMS ability to
support the i386. As Steven Bosscher said, the benefits are small,
and the impact would be serious for
Having read this whole thread, Ivote for deprecating the 386.
People using this ancient architecture can perfectly well use
older versions of gcc that have this support.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
Hi,
RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still
in use. Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact RTEMS ability to
support the i386. As Steven
On 12/14/2012 09:16 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
Hi,
RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still
in use. Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact RTEMS ability to
support the i386. As Steven Bosscher said, the benefits are
On 12/14/2012 10:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 12/14/2012 3:13 PM, Cynthia Rempel wrote:
Hi,
RTEMS still supports the i386, and there are many i386 machines still
in use. Deprecating the i386 will negatively impact
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, John Marino wrote:
FreeBSD ports have every modern version of GCC in them, nothing stops a
user from building and using the latest GCC on FreeBSD (Note the ports
are well maintained).
Thanks, John. :-) (Note to those not aware I am taking care of those.)
On Thu, 13 Dec
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM, David Brown david.br...@hesbynett.no wrote:
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino gnu...@marino.st wrote:
On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
are already half-way through the deprecation. I'd
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end
On 13/12/2012 12:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC for future releases so there's no
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this
On 13/12/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM, David Brown david.br...@hesbynett.no wrote:
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the
Intel stopped producing embedded 386 chips in 2007.
Right, but this architecture is not protected, so the
question is whether there are other vendors producing
compatible chips. I don't know the answer.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
You're confused. Dropping something as a
On 13/12/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
On 12/13/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Intel stopped producing embedded 386 chips in 2007.
Right, but this architecture is not protected, so the
question is whether there are other vendors producing
compatible chips. I don't know the answer.
Ralf has found one such a vendor,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed they are not at all happy with GPLv3. That's not a reason
listed on your reference. He also claimed they not using still maintained
compilers which is
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, John Marino gnu...@marino.st wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed they are not at all happy with GPLv3. That's not a reason
listed on your reference. He also claimed they not using still maintained
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, John Marino gnu...@marino.st wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed they are not at all happy with GPLv3. That's not a reason
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Gerald runs regression tests on both i386 and x86_64 freebsd (though some old
versions of it). We do have a listed maintainer for freebsd. Apart from
build
issues I am not aware of frequent freebsd specific bugs.
Gerald's test for
On 12/13/2012 13:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed they are not at all happy with GPLv3. That's not a reason
listed on your reference. He also claimed they not
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM, John Marino wrote:
Everything I have said is a fact, please illustrate which statement I made
seems emotional.
Joining in this discussion at all? I wish *bsd people were just as
responsive to bug reports...
Ciao!
Steven
On 12/13/2012 7:26 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Ralf has found one such a vendor, it seems.
But to me, that doesn't automatically imply that GCC must continue to
support such a target. Other criteria should also be considered. For
instance, quality of implementation and maintenance burden.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius
ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy :-)
But if no sign of 386 embedded chips, then reasonable to deprecate
I've never heard about them before, nor do I know how far spread their
products are, however these folks seem to be producing i386-SoCs
On 12/13/2012 03:15 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/13/2012 7:26 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Ralf has found one such a vendor, it seems.
But to me, that doesn't automatically imply that GCC must continue to
support such a target. Other criteria should also be considered. For
instance, quality of
Quoting Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com:
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well
On 12/13/2012 04:53 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Quoting Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@googlemail.com:
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the
Hello,
Linux support for i386 has been removed. Should we do the same for GCC?
The oldest ix86 variant that'd be supported would be i486.
The benefit would be a few good cleanups:
* PROCESSOR_I386 / TARGET_386 can be removed
* X86_TUNE_DOUBLE_WITH_ADD can be removed (always true)
*
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Linux support for i386 has been removed. Should we do the same for GCC?
The oldest ix86 variant that'd be supported would be i486.
The benefit would be a few good cleanups:
* PROCESSOR_I386 / TARGET_386
On 12/12/2012 1:01 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello,
Linux support for i386 has been removed. Should we do the same for GCC?
The oldest ix86 variant that'd be supported would be i486.
Are there any embedded chips that still use the 386 instruction set?
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 1:01 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello,
Linux support for i386 has been removed. Should we do the same for GCC?
The oldest ix86 variant that'd be supported would be i486.
Are there any embedded chips that still use the 386
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy :-)
But if no sign of 386 embedded chips,
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy
56 matches
Mail list logo
