From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 18 20:19:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2D416A4CE; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:19:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0073743D39; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:19:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9IKJISh040244; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:19:18 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <417424DE.8050308@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:17:34 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruslan Ermilov References: <200410181719.i9IHJa9l097436@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041018173516.GB89681@ip.net.ua> <20041018174511.GA6079@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041018183118.GA80703@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20041018184234.GC10529@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041018194927.GG89681@ip.net.ua> <41741F6E.90600@freebsd.org> <20041018201122.GB34236@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20041018201122.GB34236@ip.net.ua> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: David O'Brien Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:19:07 -0000 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 01:54:22PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > >>This has been discussed for years. It should not be a surpise. Frankly >>I'm thrilled that David at least made it conditional rather than just >>culling the support entirely as has been threatened so often in the >>past. >> > > _What_ has been discussed for years? > > It's been for years that GENERIC kernel doesn't support i386. > > It's been for years that in 6.0-RELEASE the I386_CPU should > go away. > > It wasn't for years that default world won't run on i386. > If this is going to happen (you speak for re@?), then let's > declare it to the world first -- this is all I ask about. > > If i386 support should go away completely, I'm fine with > this too, but let's declare it before doing it. > > >>i386 hasn't been supported in the default configuration for years. >> > > This was true only about the kernel. With this and your previous statement, I'm having a hard time understanding the big distinction between kernel and world supporting i386. If you want to install and run on an i386, you're going to have to build a custom kernel. I guess that changing the libraries means that you're going to have to build a custom world now also, but it's not taking away the ability to do so. And you even said in a previous email that favoring >i386 is a good thing. So lets do it! Like I said before, as long as the knobs to turn the support back on are consistent and documented, nothing is lost! > > >>Whether or not someone got it running with 5.2.1 doesn't change this. >> > > How's that? i386 release notes say that running on i386 is still > supported, just requires recompiling a kernel. This is no longer > the case after this commit. > > >>The knobs are there to (theoretically) turn it on. So as long as those >>knobs are consistent and documented, nothing is lost. >> > > They are not, and my complaint was solely about it. I ended > up sending a patch to David for libc/Makefile per his request. > > >>Guys, just decide on the name of the knob and be done with it. Please! >>This was settled years ago. The 80386 isn't making an unexpected >>comeback here that warrants a lot of fighting. >> > > This is not a fighting at all. Rather, this is just a normal > polishing of an incomplete commit. > > > Cheers, You seem to be focued on the change to the i386 library. Please work with David to find an acceptable combination of letters and numbers that can be used to signify "Turn 80386 support back on" and then move on. I think that we are all violently in agreement here and are picking on each other for gramatical errors. Fact is that 80386 doesn't work out of the box, this is a new tweak that is needed to make it work, and if you are concerned about the documentation and consistency of the tweak then please fix it. Scott