On Friday 18 March 2011 01:19 am, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 March 2011 03:57 pm, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> On 2011-Mar-16 16:34:04 -0400, Jung-uk Kim
wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 16 March 2011 01:45 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
> if we drop i486
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2011 03:57 pm, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2011-Mar-16 16:34:04 -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 01:45 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
if we drop i486 I think it makes sense to require something that
has at least SSE2, thus
On Thursday 17 March 2011 03:57 pm, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Mar-16 16:34:04 -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> >On Wednesday 16 March 2011 01:45 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
> >> if we drop i486 I think it makes sense to require something that
> >> has at least SSE2, thus we can have the same expectati
On 2011-Mar-16 16:34:04 -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>On Wednesday 16 March 2011 01:45 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> if we drop i486 I think it makes sense to require something that
>> has at least SSE2, thus we can have the same expectations as on
>> amd64.
I think it's stil a bit early for that - es
On Thursday 17 March 2011 08:42 am, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 March 2011 01:45 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> This i
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 01:45 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
This isn't really different as long as GENERIC kernel used, as
GENERIC defines
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 3/16/11 2:16 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 16 March 2011 21:03, Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:45:53PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim
On 3/16/11 2:16 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 16 March 2011 21:03, Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:45:53PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
This isn't really different as
On 16 March 2011 21:03, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:45:53PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
>> > > This isn't really different as long as GENERIC kernel use
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:03:46 +0100
Erik Trulsson wrote:
> There are probably only a handful of people (if that) who actually run
> FreeBSD on an actual 486-class machine, but requiring SSE2 would mean
> dropping support for Pentium-III and Athlon-XP equipped machines and
> I believe there are a l
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 01:45 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> > > This isn't really different as long as GENERIC kernel used, as
> > > GENERIC defines I486_CPU.
> >
> > Fixed in r
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:45:53PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> > > This isn't really different as long as GENERIC kernel used, as
> > > GENERIC defines I486_CPU.
> >
> > Fixe
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> > This isn't really different as long as GENERIC kernel used, as
> > GENERIC defines I486_CPU.
>
> Fixed in r219698, sorry.
>
> Actually, I think we should remove i486 from GENE
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 08:45 pm, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> This isn't really different as long as GENERIC kernel used, as
> GENERIC defines I486_CPU.
Fixed in r219698, sorry.
Actually, I think we should remove i486 from GENERIC at some point.
It has too many limitations. For example, I really lo
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Maxim Dounin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:45:10PM +, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
Author: jkim
Date: Tue Mar 15 21:45:10 2011
New Revision: 219679
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219679
Log:
Partially revert r219672. After r198295, kernel need to seed randomn
Hello!
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:45:10PM +, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> Author: jkim
> Date: Tue Mar 15 21:45:10 2011
> New Revision: 219679
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219679
>
> Log:
> Partially revert r219672. After r198295, kernel need to seed randomness as
> soon as poss
Author: jkim
Date: Tue Mar 15 21:45:10 2011
New Revision: 219679
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219679
Log:
Partially revert r219672. After r198295, kernel need to seed randomness as
soon as possible for stack protector. However, dummy timecounter does not
have enough entropy a
17 matches
Mail list logo
