From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 24 15:41:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6147316A4CE for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A4043D5F for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:40:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 12156 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2004 23:40:06 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 24 Jan 2004 23:40:06 -0000 Received: from slimer.baldwin.cx (slimer.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.16]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0ONe2M0040310; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:40:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:33:46 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <20040124074052.GA12597@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20040124210945.GJ908@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20040124210945.GJ908@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401241833.46964.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) Subject: Re: 80386 support in -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:41:05 -0000 On Saturday 24 January 2004 04:09 pm, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:40:52PM +1100, I wrote: > >Does anyone know why FreeBSD 5.x would not run on a 386SX/387SX > >combination? I realise the performance would be very poor but I > >don't see any reason why it wouldn't work at all. > > Based on the responses, I should have included more details. In my > defense, I was being dragged out of the house at the time. This is a > theoretical question rather than a problem with an actual system. I > am aware that the FPU is mandatory (hence the 386/387 combination) and > I'm aware that I need to build a kernel with "CPU_I386" which then > can't run on anything else (I meant to state this). > > My question was triggered by reading the 5.2-RELEASE i386 Hardware > Notes which state that the 80386 is supported but the 80386SX isn't. > I believe this is a documentation bug - especially since the "80386SX > isn't supported" was committed about a week after the FPU emulation > code was axed, though there's no mention of FPU requirements in the > hardware notes. I've written a PR (www/61824) but thought I'd double > check my facts. This is a docco bug. Neither 80386[DS]X include a FPU, so a 387 would be required in both cases. However, for 80846's, a 486SX does not include an FPU and would require a 487. The 486 DX does include an FPU and will work fine. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org