From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 19 21:49:19 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 4FBD716A4CE; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:49:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1DC43D64; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:49:18 +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 i9JLnbcO046152; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:49:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41758B81.5090903@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:47:45 -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: John Baldwin References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> 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: "M. Warner Losh" 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 21:49:19 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > 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. > I agree that 80386 support should not be removed from RELENG_5, but I don't see anything wrong with optmizing the common case and adding an extra 80386-specific hurdle to 5.x. Scott