From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 00:27:18 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 EE50116A4CE; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:27:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web.portaone.com (mail.russia.cz [195.70.151.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038E343D3F; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:27:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sobomax@portaone.com) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (xDSL-2-2.united.net.ua [193.111.9.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by web.portaone.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9K0R3K9021421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:27:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sobomax@portaone.com) Message-ID: <4175B0CD.1050204@portaone.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:26:53 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Porta Software Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <20041019072349.GA28133@samodelkin.net> <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: danfe@FreeBSD.ORG cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG cc: ru@FreeBSD.ORG cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG cc: andy@fud.org.nz cc: fjoe@samodelkin.net 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: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:27:19 -0000 M. Warner Losh 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. 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) if 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. Let's just rip that old junk off! -Maxim