Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:42:21 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S Message-ID: <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 19 October 2004 10:43 am, you wrote: > In message: <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> > > Andrew Thompson <andy@fud.org.nz> writes: > : > I am afraid that recompiling a kernel on i386 will require several > : > days. > : > : Chicken and the egg. To support i386 it must be recompiled, so you would > : have to do it on another box anyway. > > The only people that will seriously want to use i386 these days are > the folks that build embedded systems. Those you have to build on > some host then deploy to the target system. > > There are some benefits to having i386 in the tree. However, there > are also a number of different places in the tree where things are > sub-optimal because we still have support for i386 in there. The > desire to remove them is to make FreeBSD go faster on more modern > hardware. I think 6.0 is the place to drop 80386, not 5.x. I'm already working on a p4 branch (jhb_no386) to remove 80396 support from HEAD, but I think 5.x should be left as is in this regard. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410191541.54269.jhb>