From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 24 13:09:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751C616A4CE for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:09:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C47143D1F for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:09:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])i0OL9je3013589 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:09:45 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from jeremyp@localhost) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0OL9jWV013588 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:09:45 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:09:45 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040124210945.GJ908@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20040124074052.GA12597@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040124074052.GA12597@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: 80386 support in -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:09:58 -0000 On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:40:52PM +1100, I wrote: >Does anyone know why FreeBSD 5.x would not run on a 386SX/387SX >combination? I realise the performance would be very poor but I >don't see any reason why it wouldn't work at all. Based on the responses, I should have included more details. In my defense, I was being dragged out of the house at the time. This is a theoretical question rather than a problem with an actual system. I am aware that the FPU is mandatory (hence the 386/387 combination) and I'm aware that I need to build a kernel with "CPU_I386" which then can't run on anything else (I meant to state this). My question was triggered by reading the 5.2-RELEASE i386 Hardware Notes which state that the 80386 is supported but the 80386SX isn't. I believe this is a documentation bug - especially since the "80386SX isn't supported" was committed about a week after the FPU emulation code was axed, though there's no mention of FPU requirements in the hardware notes. I've written a PR (www/61824) but thought I'd double check my facts. Peter