On 16 March 2011 21:03, Erik Trulsson <ertr1...@student.uu.se> 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 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 love to implement >> > atomic 64-bit mem read/write using cmpxchg8b (no 0xf00f joke, please) >> > but I cannot do that cleanly without removing I486 support or >> > checking cpu_class at run-time. :-( >> >> 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. > > No, that would remove support from far too many machines that people > actually use to run FreeBSD.
> 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 large number of such machines still in use, and > they are still perfectly suitable for a large number of tasks. This is understandable but I also think it deserves a poll at stable@ and current@. It might be worth keeping i486 for all of 9-stable but removing it before 10-stable. Judging from previous releases, 9.x would be supported until at least 2016. I don't follow the embedded world that much, but from what I saw, most (incl. Soekris) are moving to Atom designs which support SSE2. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"