From nobody Thu Apr 27 23:50:22 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Q6stT4HvWz487fs for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:50:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrtc27@jrtc27.com) Received: from mail-wm1-f43.google.com (mail-wm1-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Q6stT2Mqzz3NVX for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:50:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrtc27@jrtc27.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f178da219bso91092405e9.1 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:50:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1682639423; x=1685231423; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Fh65SKQ9zlBzcUD2qpJ8e1x7Cw61fbKdj+CzlmBgkC0=; b=Qit0E6lojTSayakOmOlZYkDW1zXg1bxvCZ+E8YLa99qqL/UZLA424DzDbKRjrPlp2i 9ZJdYHXXHEyqTAcLmud268tffSs+oLVtK5iA71nDRvj3ztsCAvha70jLjsyXlwRJcibA cblzojUtlXwSAkZIHHFsujomvYZAz0v3vPAW6q29aDM11jkB3GQig+7jYbJV2jcT59vn OLIDSLebVhI+M/LCUNHmdTREru0IDalK7PPUDK9mBOOCJlTHybyWnPvtsPnmB23lFi8X TIMCOMWV1Uj1xvDbqCsb3BpqS1pObzuAyBi9/EPErRdQJfhMaa75GGnIrzSQBFQ8fJFn inMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxSX+eFJjW33c+DG2UhTIqenKR5xVzoKJevGaInM3sFTT26tmuz /uKBPjRCoZ2Yd55rVytcnLg3TnbIQXtmpb5zTvc1wQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4Vfrhiwu0x01cLeC7gtfVO0xP2GiItwrigP9pr87l/HtLRPCCokDi+LumvQ2J9gZsgO2D5FA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2104:b0:3f1:819d:d046 with SMTP id u4-20020a05600c210400b003f1819dd046mr2657009wml.5.1682639423248; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([131.111.5.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f12-20020adfdb4c000000b002f9ff443184sm19590376wrj.24.2023.04.27.16.50.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arch List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\)) Subject: Re: Future of 32-bit platforms (including i386) From: Jessica Clarke In-Reply-To: <671d3bf6-b207-e7c5-5282-4df317193db6@selasky.org> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:50:22 +0100 Cc: freebsd-arch , John Baldwin Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <671d3bf6-b207-e7c5-5282-4df317193db6@selasky.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Q6stT2Mqzz3NVX X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 28 Apr 2023, at 00:44, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: >=20 > On 4/27/23 19:19, John Baldwin wrote: >> For 13.0, i386 was demoted from Tier 1 to Tier 2. In the = announcement >> of this for 13.0, the project committed to an update on i386's future >> around the time of 14.0. The announcement at the time suggested that >> i386 would be supported less in 14.x than in 13.x. >=20 > Hi, >=20 > This makes me think about all the issues about the "long" type in the = past, and printf() and more, being caught when compiling = TARGET_ARCH=3Di386 . >=20 > Maybe just put the following line of code somewhere central :-) >=20 > _Static_assert(sizeof(long) =3D=3D 8); >=20 > Will there ever be some kind of hybrid CPU systems? >=20 > 4 cores AMD64, 4 cores AARCH64 and some virtual QEMU CPUs all running = on the same system? >=20 > I mean, the arm vs intel battle is not going to end soonish. And = emulating CPUs is slow and waste electricity. Why not have one computer = having both kind of CPUs, and one OS, and one harddisk? And figure out a = common ABI allowing seamless task switching between them? I know there = are some hard differences, but can't those be ironed out? I don=E2=80=99t know where to start with this other than to give an = emphatic no to almost all of what you said, or at least the bits for = which meaning can be extracted. Regardless, this is not the place for = such pie-in-the-sky discussions; if you want to theorise about weird and = wacky computer architectures then please take it elsewhere. Jess