Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 18:32:42 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 223415] lang/rust: don't require SSE2 on i386 (at least for binary packages) Message-ID: <bug-223415-29464-Oxi7f3EmSj@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-223415-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-223415-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D223415 Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dim@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #5 from Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #4) > Can toolchain@ clarify plans regarding i386 support in future? Is FreeBSD > going to be stuck targeting i486 until the architecture is dead? I think the architecture itself will live on for quite some time, whether we like it or not. In my opinion we should start requiring at least i686 or higher (or maybe even pentium4). IIRC there have been plans to start an arch separate from i386, specifically for updating to 64-bit time_t, that could maybe also be used for such an update. :) On the other hand, in Linux land there are already distros dropping i386 completely, e.g: https://www.archlinux.org/news/the-end-of-i686-support/ > How much > effort port maintainers are supposed to exert for i486 if upstream projec= ts > couldn't care less? It's not like FreeBSD to care about ancient hardware > (unlike NetBSD). At some point, I guess we must simply stop supporting some ports for such targets. I can't be too long until firefox and chromium are simply too lar= ge to run in a 32-bit address space... --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-223415-29464-Oxi7f3EmSj>