From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 24 00:26:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA22326 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:26:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from www.scancall.no (www.scancall.no [195.139.183.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA22321 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:26:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Marius.Bendiksen@scancall.no) Received: from super2.langesund.scancall.no [195.139.183.29] by www with smtp id KFROIRJJ; Tue, 24 Nov 98 08:26:43 GMT (PowerWeb version 4.04r6) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981124092630.00b7b1e0@mail.scancall.no> X-Sender: Marius@mail.scancall.no X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:26:30 +0100 To: John Polstra From: Marius Bendiksen Subject: Re: FreeBSD on i386 memory model Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, joelh@gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19981123144427.00b40940@mail.scancall.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >No. Have you even read this thread? Yes. >This thread is about whether to expend significant effort and >sacrifice significant elegance and maintainability in order to >_slightly_ _optimize_ system calls for 486 systems. It has nothing >to do with whether we support 486 systems or not. I know that. I'm simply wondering how much extra complexity we would be adding, and what kind of impact it would have on syscall times. And, if you've read the thread yourself, you'll see that the answer I recieved some time ago indicated that we didn't want to do this because it applied to the 486, it did not say 'we don't want to add this complexity for such a small performance gain on the 486'. --- Marius Bendiksen, IT-Trainee, ScanCall AS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message