Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 05:14:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, "Conrad E. Meyer" <cem@freebsd.org>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: r343567 aka PAE vs non-PAE merge breaks i386 freebsd Message-ID: <201903011314.x21DE2OB061464@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfq7rFGgHtQ3y%2B=FwoLtemvVqZP=rnKWhp%2BTnntPu8BZ4g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:46 PM John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 2/28/19 11:14 AM, 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. > > >> > > >> Conrad > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > >> "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > 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? > > > > We have only removed support for 386 since it didn't support cmpxchg. We > > still > > nominally support 486s. I don't know how well FreeBSD 13 would run on a > > 486, but > > in theory the code is still there and the binaries shouldn't die with > > illegal > > instruction faults. > > > > The biggest barrier to running on a real 486 is that it's hard for FreeBSD > to fit into 32MB that was the maximum config you could have. You can barely > boot it w/o tuning, though it will still fit a few jobs if you are looking > at something super low-end with a lot of effort. Effort that has been completed in several places, wifi-build for one, where I did boot a 12.0 image of 8MB in size running in 32MB iirc on a D-Link DIR-855? router. > There are a few later CPUs built on basically a 486 whose chipsets could > support up to 128MB or 256MB which is enough to run FreeBSD still. Amd Geode would be in that group? -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201903011314.x21DE2OB061464>