Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:47:45 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S Message-ID: <41758B81.5090903@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 19 October 2004 10:43 am, you wrote: > >>In message: <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> >> >> Andrew Thompson <andy@fud.org.nz> writes: >>: > I am afraid that recompiling a kernel on i386 will require several >>: > days. >>: >>: Chicken and the egg. To support i386 it must be recompiled, so you would >>: have to do it on another box anyway. >> >>The only people that will seriously want to use i386 these days are >>the folks that build embedded systems. Those you have to build on >>some host then deploy to the target system. >> >>There are some benefits to having i386 in the tree. However, there >>are also a number of different places in the tree where things are >>sub-optimal because we still have support for i386 in there. The >>desire to remove them is to make FreeBSD go faster on more modern >>hardware. > > > I think 6.0 is the place to drop 80386, not 5.x. I'm already working on a p4 > branch (jhb_no386) to remove 80396 support from HEAD, but I think 5.x should > be left as is in this regard. > I agree that 80386 support should not be removed from RELENG_5, but I don't see anything wrong with optmizing the common case and adding an extra 80386-specific hurdle to 5.x. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41758B81.5090903>