From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 19:10:59 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C285816A4F3 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:10:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail3.speakeasy.net (mail3.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759DC43D39 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:10:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 31566 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2004 19:10:59 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 20 Oct 2004 19:10:58 -0000 Received: from [10.50.41.228] (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9KJAlbi059480; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:10:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Scott Long Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:19:06 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <41758B81.5090903@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <41758B81.5090903@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410201419.06181.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:11:00 -0000 On Tuesday 19 October 2004 05:47 pm, Scott Long wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 October 2004 10:43 am, you wrote: > >>In message: <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> > >> > >> Andrew Thompson 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. It would be nice to have some actual real-world benchmarks that show that this change actually buys something. Recompiling a kernel isn't too high of a barrier to entry, but recompiling userland is a bit much. Many moons ago we decided to not remove 80386 support from 5.x, and since we've already branched RELENG_5 I think we are pretty much stuck with that now. 6.0 won't be that long in coming and we can kill it for good there. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org