From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sun Oct 6 10:55:18 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5195C13CF41 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 10:55:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from mx0.gid.co.uk (mx0.gid.co.uk [194.32.164.250]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46mL9d0hT2z43GR; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 10:55:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from [194.32.164.30] ([194.32.164.30]) by mx0.gid.co.uk (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id x96AtADx092543; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 11:55:11 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: New CPUTYPE default for i386 port From: Bob Bishop In-Reply-To: <20f9896361c341736c5154c010cedf3fdcffc235.camel@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 11:55:10 +0100 Cc: Cy Schubert , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Warner Losh , Shawn Webb Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20191005173411.l6gs3kszs7zcgfey@mutt-hbsd> <06E29438-732D-4045-8FB3-5F2A082E9B98@cschubert.com> <20f9896361c341736c5154c010cedf3fdcffc235.camel@freebsd.org> To: Ian Lepore X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46mL9d0hT2z43GR X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of rb@gid.co.uk designates 194.32.164.250 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rb@gid.co.uk X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.35 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[gid.co.uk]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[250.164.32.194.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; IP_SCORE(-0.65)[ip: (-2.32), ipnet: 194.32.164.0/24(-1.16), asn: 42831(0.31), country: GB(-0.08)]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42831, ipnet:194.32.164.0/24, country:GB]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 10:55:18 -0000 > On 5 Oct 2019, at 23:50, Ian Lepore wrote: >=20 > On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 14:20 -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: >> On October 5, 2019 11:19:41 AM PDT, Warner Losh >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 11:34 AM Shawn Webb < >>> shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:28:53AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >>>>>=20 > [...] >>>> I'm curious about the possibilities regarding 64-bit time_t on >>>> 32-bit >>>> Intel systems. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Beyond the scope of this discussion. However, feel free to start a >>> thread on this. It's quite difficult to switch if you want binary >>> compat. It would affect system calls on the upgrade path and is >>> among the hardest types to change if you have any kind of legacy to >>> support... >>>=20 >>> Warner >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> This is one of the two reasons I believe we should deprecate 32-bit. >> Even supporting 32-bit compatibility long term is unsustainable. It >> is not worth the effort. >>=20 >> Putting a stake in the ground to say we no longer support 32-bit >> after 2038 would be desirable. (Sooner the better though.) >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > Only i386 has a 32-bit time_t. Other 32-bit arches either began life > with 64-bit time_t or have been switched to it. >=20 > For i386, if its current users (and I am one, for $work) have a choice > between "As of date X there will be no more i386" and "As of date X we > switch time_t to 64 bits and you will not be able to run old binaries > after that" I suspect people would choose the latter. >=20 > =E2=80=94 Ian Obvious casualties of total i386 deprecation would be Soekris 45xx (AMD = Elan (i486)) and 55xx (AMD Geode (i586)), we have small numbers of those = running recent HEAD. We are only still using them because they are more = or less indestructible (especially compared with a lot of the ARM-based = offerings). I don=E2=80=99t think we=E2=80=99d complain if i386 support = ceased on a reasonable timescale. -- Bob Bishop rb@gid.co.uk