From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 19 21:29:33 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 8248A16A4CE; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:29:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAF943D1D; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:29:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9JLSjiY017470; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:28:45 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:29:02 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20041019.152902.02300007.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org 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: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:29:33 -0000 In message: <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> John Baldwin writes: : On Tuesday 19 October 2004 10:43 am, you wrote: : > In message: <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> : > : > Andrew Thompson 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. That was the agreement some months ago. 5.x would have it de-emphasized to allow easier optimizations, and 6.0 would actually remove it unless there was some really compelling reason not to. So far, none of the arguments have come close to getting to compelling, let alone really compelling. The low end of most intel based embedded is the Elan chipset these days, and old 386 desktops are rare. Support for i386 negatively impacts certain low level routines in a number of ways. But we've been through all before when we came to the agreement: 5.x wouldn't support it out of the box, but the clueful can coax 386 support out of the source tree. No one was to do anything to break it. If someone accidentally did break it, it was the resonsibility of the 386 fans to fix it. This has happened at least once that I'm aware of. 6.x would remove support for i386 entirely, unless some really compelling reason was presented that wasn't present in the original discussion. David's commits do nothing to change the above, nor were they intended to do so. Nothing in the ensuing discussion has changed it either, so we're back to the original agreement. I'm posting it here for clarity. Warner