Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:47:13 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> Cc: fjoe@samodelkin.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S Message-ID: <4175B591.4090407@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4175B0CD.1050204@portaone.com> References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <20041019072349.GA28133@samodelkin.net> <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> <4175B0CD.1050204@portaone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > M. Warner Losh 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. > > > Can anyone give at least one valid point why somebody will want to use > 6.x on embedded i386? Such hardware is inheretedly limited, so that > all good stuff that have been added into FreeBSD during the past few years > (SMPng, GEOM, KSE, you-name-it) is SMP is the only one of these for which you are correct.. KSE and geom couldn't care about 486 or 386.. I think 386 machines are not going to be SMP. I would be happy to see SMP completely incompatible with 386 (I mean you don't need atomic operations at all on a UP system, so any such instructions can be ignored in that case.) doesn't mean we shouldn't rip it out.. just pointing out that in fact there is a "middle position" where we continue to support Uniprocessor 386.. > of no use on that hardware anyway. IMO any reasonable embedded folks > would just stick > with 4.x or even 3.x due to their smaller footprint and better > performance on old systems. I'd like to see a 4.x with threads :-) hmm maybe dragonfly..... > > > Let's just rip that old junk off! > > -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4175B591.4090407>