cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S
deischen at freebsd.org
Tue Oct 19 17:57:25 PDT 2004
[ CC list trimmed ]
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >> In message: <20041019073145.GA29746 at thingy.tbd.co.nz>
> >> Andrew Thompson <andy at 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.
> > Can anyone give at least one valid point why somebody will want to use
> > 6.x on embedded i386? Such hardware is inheretedly limited, so that
> > all good stuff that have been added into FreeBSD during the past few years
> > (SMPng, GEOM, KSE, you-name-it) is
> SMP is the only one of these for which you are correct..
> KSE and geom couldn't care about 486 or 386..
There are plans afoot to use cmpxchl in userland for KSE,
similar to libthr's use of it for umtx. So libpthread
won't work for 386 in the future.
More information about the cvs-all