Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 11:24:53 -0800 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: cem@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: r343567 aka PAE vs non-PAE merge breaks i386 freebsd Message-ID: <029F8ACF-C9B3-49AC-80C3-C947EE9801A1@cschubert.com> In-Reply-To: <20190228192124.GB18089@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20190222033924.GA25285@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190222060410.GA25817@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190223032644.GA14058@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAG6CVpW7y1qwxeU_gNWGmnKsgUkXKUTnmSwd3O2ByPdo_EO3uw@mail.gmail.com> <20190223163947.GB18805@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <f38f2329-900b-2ae2-02e6-e1b993f9250a@FreeBSD.org> <20190228183214.GA17372@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAG6CVpWasUzvHv56t8trK_6=wr-o_w4PnNDUir-Ye=kQXofoOQ@mail.gmail.com> <866D86B4-6E47-46BA-BC4C-6E98DA94403E@cschubert.com> <20190228192124.GB18089@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On February 28, 2019 11:21:24 AM PST, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: >On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:14:51AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote: >> On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> >wrote: >> >On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl >> ><sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now >> >> the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures are after >> >> thoughts? >> > >> >This has been the de facto truth for years. i386 is mostly only >> >supported by virtue of sharing code with amd64. There are efforts >to >> >promote arm64 to Tier 1, but it isn't there yet. Power8+ might be >> >another good alternative Tier 1 candidate eventually. None have >> >anything like the developer popularity that amd64 enjoys. >> > >> >> We deprecated and removed support for 386 and 486 processors. We >should consider removing support for low end Pentium as well. I'm >specifically thinking of removing the workarounds like F00F. Are there >any processors that are still vulnerable to this? >> > >Ahem, sys/i386/conf/GENERIC contains "cpu I486_CPU". >Is that a typo? I stand corrected. We should remove that. -- Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use. Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?029F8ACF-C9B3-49AC-80C3-C947EE9801A1>