On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > - drop the i386 support > What we have not yet decided is whether we drop i386 support for C++ > packages or for all packages. If we choose the former, the mini-i386 > will just need to contain the important C++ packages. If we choose > the later, developers can start to activate i486 optimisation in > random packages. Hmm... I'm not sure about this as the last time I used assembler was in the times of real mode DOS, but there is a yet another option: we can patch the kernel so when an invalid opcode occurs, whatever instruction was at CS:EIP gets emulated in software, similar to the way i387 emulation is done. (arch/i386/kernel/entry.S) Of course, this would further slow down the speed demon known as 80386, but since (AFAIK) the 486-specific opcodes get used pretty rarely in non-kernel code, the performance hit wouldn't be crippling. And, there is no performance hit at all for >386 machines, as no legitimate process ever triggers the invalid opcode fault.
> In any case we need to make clear if we allow 486 optimisation that > are not i386 compatible or not. What about perusing the INT 6 idea, and going all the way up to i686? As i686 is already like ten(?) years old, I would say 99.9% [1] machines that run sarge are 686 and higher -- thus, moving to i686-specific optimizations would be good for the vast majority of users (this comes from someone who set up two servers on P MMX two weeks ago :p) If speed on archaic machines is an issue, you can always use the wonderful piece of software called apt-build. Regards, 1KB [1] 90% of statistics are made up on the spot. /-----------------------\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows! \-----------------------/ Segmentation fault (core dumped)
