Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:48:25 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, "Conrad E. Meyer" <cem@freebsd.org>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: r343567 aka PAE vs non-PAE merge breaks i386 freebsd Message-ID: <CANCZdfq7rFGgHtQ3y%2B=FwoLtemvVqZP=rnKWhp%2BTnntPu8BZ4g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <947175c5-215b-c100-c6e7-c79a2322f98a@FreeBSD.org> References: <20190222033924.GA25285@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190222060410.GA25817@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190223032644.GA14058@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAG6CVpW7y1qwxeU_gNWGmnKsgUkXKUTnmSwd3O2ByPdo_EO3uw@mail.gmail.com> <20190223163947.GB18805@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <f38f2329-900b-2ae2-02e6-e1b993f9250a@FreeBSD.org> <20190228183214.GA17372@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAG6CVpWasUzvHv56t8trK_6=wr-o_w4PnNDUir-Ye=kQXofoOQ@mail.gmail.com> <866D86B4-6E47-46BA-BC4C-6E98DA94403E@cschubert.com> <947175c5-215b-c100-c6e7-c79a2322f98a@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:46 PM John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2/28/19 11:14 AM, Cy Schubert wrote: > > On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl > >> <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > >>> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now > >>> the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures are after > >>> thoughts? > >> > >> This has been the de facto truth for years. i386 is mostly only > >> supported by virtue of sharing code with amd64. There are efforts to > >> promote arm64 to Tier 1, but it isn't there yet. Power8+ might be > >> another good alternative Tier 1 candidate eventually. None have > >> anything like the developer popularity that amd64 enjoys. > >> > >> Conrad > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > >> "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > We deprecated and removed support for 386 and 486 processors. We should > consider removing support for low end Pentium as well. I'm specifically > thinking of removing the workarounds like F00F. Are there any processors > that are still vulnerable to this? > > We have only removed support for 386 since it didn't support cmpxchg. We > still > nominally support 486s. I don't know how well FreeBSD 13 would run on a > 486, but > in theory the code is still there and the binaries shouldn't die with > illegal > instruction faults. > The biggest barrier to running on a real 486 is that it's hard for FreeBSD to fit into 32MB that was the maximum config you could have. You can barely boot it w/o tuning, though it will still fit a few jobs if you are looking at something super low-end with a lot of effort. There are a few later CPUs built on basically a 486 whose chipsets could support up to 128MB or 256MB which is enough to run FreeBSD still. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfq7rFGgHtQ3y%2B=FwoLtemvVqZP=rnKWhp%2BTnntPu8BZ4g>