Date: 12 Jun 2003 15:58:36 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.1 on a 386 Message-ID: <44d6hjjcer.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <3EE8D7BE.2070803@potentialtech.com> References: <200306121325.49933.john@jnielsen.net> <020201c33119$c15e6c00$d037630a@dh.com> <3EE8D7BE.2070803@potentialtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > > I could be wrong, but I thought that they finally gave up on 386 support and > > now the base minimum is 486. It could very well be that you can't compile > > the system for a 386 without significant modification. No, it's just that a 386 isn't supported in the base install. Given how far the original poster had gotten, he appears to have a better handle on the details of this issue. Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> writes: > If this is the case, then the hardware notes need updated, I quote: > "All Intel processors beginning with the 80386 are supported, including the > 80386, ..." > ... and ... > "While technically supported, the use of the 80386SX is specifically not > recommended." > That last sentence is slightly vague. I assume that they recommend against > the 386 simply because it's not powerful enough to be worthwhile, but it > doesn't say specifically why. No, the 386SX is a problem because it has no floating point registers (or any other floating point support, for that matter). The 386DX (with the floating point support onboard) is supported just fine, as I understand it. The original poster probably needs to go to the -CURRENT mailing list, where the details of the changed build procedures are understood a little better than, well, than in my own head...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44d6hjjcer.fsf>