From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 20 08:47:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA21671 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:47:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from detlev.UUCP (tex-55.camalott.com [208.229.74.55]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA21655 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:46:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from joelh@gnu.org) Received: (from joelh@localhost) by detlev.UUCP (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA01825; Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:45:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from joelh) To: Marius Bendiksen Cc: Terry Lambert , dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon), rnordier@nordier.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD on i386 memory model References: <199811181842.KAA06180@apollo.backplane.com> <3.0.5.32.19981120103442.0099f460@mail.scancall.no> From: Joel Ray Holveck Date: 20 Nov 1998 10:45:53 -0600 In-Reply-To: Marius Bendiksen's message of "Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:34:42 +0100" Message-ID: <86hfvuia7y.fsf@detlev.UUCP> Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >>> On the 386 and 486, call gates are faster. On the pentium, >>> pentium-PRO, and pentium-II, interrupts are faster. > With regards to this, might it not be a good idea to use a different > syscall convention, based on whether you've got the 486/384 options in your > kernel or not? It would require changing libc to read the kernel config file. Do we really want to mess with this? Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message