On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:46:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Document it in the release notes, please. It's not worth risking > stability for the majority of users for this kind of bug. > > Anyway, is there any particular reason why upstream (or you) don't use > the Intel-recommended way for detection of CPUID support? A library > twiddling with SIGILL isn't a terribly good idea.
I have no idea. I just made the smallest change possible to make mysql not break 486 machines. The other option is to go back to what was done for sarge as far as I can tell, which is use the C implementation rather than the assembly one and loose the performance gains on newer CPUs. And documenting in the release notes that 486s will break on upgrade doesn't seem like a particularly good solution without a fixed package being made. Well if nothing else it can go into 4.0r1 I guess, or a proposed update in the mean time. Now if there is a recomended way to detect cpuid support, then it would certainly make sense for the upstream to use that instead. I find the current method very icky. :) setjmp, and a SIGILL handler just seems wrong. Where does one find the recomended method? -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
