From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 1 14:00:57 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BDB06EA for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:00:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB4B7D3 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id qd14so2341474ieb.28 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 07:00:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=oYn5c/OLzc5K7yzMoym3Rqdpu/A9vFPOjUAYu9Zt+rI=; b=ooLTM7osTheMbQlXGD5+psMEcozRFxtVmOK01MLVKbipKyuK1bQWPhZooCpQVdMRoM U2TXGiaUOI+RXmU4LHXMEupCFobauKvtDvW0oeOJHLeDZMpP60UxHL3PI9EtQqHam/p3 SvlmFefsulYVQ/0R1HY4A8CtOlp5od9b2WoWMjFAFBEZEbU/gfVoUOaRY7dUOJfB6vJf 8uaqMAHF6ov1c2CPlSxLvtEBuaHohOlRraehGML22m1ljvPvfwOWTWzvvIIosWgRiJRd NVtgMXnD5ao3K1pYOCnHKmii/HDDDoqp4j/5tqAQefFaIfsDECvq1szXVJpazphIulhx gskg== X-Received: by 10.50.178.105 with SMTP id cx9mr3370692igc.111.1364824855658; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 07:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 53.imp.bsdimp.com (50-78-194-198-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.78.194.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vb15sm4719797igb.9.2013.04.01.07.00.53 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Apr 2013 07:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh Subject: Re: considering i386 as a tier 1 architecture Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 08:00:52 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Kimmo Paasiala X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1iDh+LH3Xqpcle6pheonuoCcFH8eaPdTFTf/roE3xDgvAfT6JjkS4cKga2zKp8hGCbMbU Cc: Eitan Adler , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Hackers X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:00:57 -0000 On Mar 31, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > I think the only ones who are going to object are the users of = embedded > hardware. Some of them are still using CPUs that are only i586 = equivalent. >=20 > Personally I support the notion. >=20 > -Kimmo >=20 >=20 > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Eitan Adler = wrote: >=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> I am writing this email to discuss the i386 architecture in FreeBSD. >>=20 >> Computers are getting faster, but also more memory intensive. I >> can not find a laptop with less than 4 or 8 GB of RAM. Modern >> browsers, such as Firefox, require a 64bit architecture and 8GB of >> RAM. A 32 bit platform is not enough now a days on systems with >> more than 4 GB of RAM. A 32 bit core now is like 640K of RAM in >> the 1990s. Even in the embedded world ARM is going 64 bit with >> ARMv8. Actually, that's not true. ARM is producing a 64-bit thing, but (a) it = hasn't been released yet and (b) the vast majority of all embedded arm = boards are 32-bits. >> Secondly, the i386 port is unmaintained. Very few developers run >> it, so it doesn't get the testing it deserves. Almost every user >> post or bug report I see from a x86 compatible processor is running >> amd64. When was the last time you booted i386 outside a virtual >> machine? Often times the build works for amd64 but fails for i386. I've not seen this to be the case, and I still run i386 in several = virtual machines as well as on my firewall. Running in a virtual = environment isn't good support for dropping i386, frankly. I've had the = build be broken for me about equal times for both. >> Finally, others are dropping support for i386. Windows Server 2008 >> is 64 bit only, OSX Mountain Lion (10.8) is 64-bit only. Users >> and downstream vendors no longer care about preserving ancient >> hardware. >>=20 >> I hope this email is enough to convince you that on this date we >> should drop support for the i386 architecture for 10.0 to tier 2 >> and replace it with the ARM architecture as Tier 1. arm can be Tier 1 without dropping i386 as Tier 1. Are there specific = bugs in i386 that haven't gone fixed for a long time? Basically, I see no benefit to this move. At least none has been = articulated. Warner=