Konstantin Khomoutov wrote...
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:52:28 +0300
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> > Would it be useful to have something like that script in a package? If
> > so, which package?
>
> To me, this is something to probably put into the release notes for the
> next release if the origina
Ben Hutchings wrote...
> So far as I know the required feature flags are: fpu tsc cx8 cmov;
> and the CPUs that have them are:
Thanks for that. So for the records, VIA C3 Ezra and AMD-K6 lack
cmov and therefore will fall out of support. I see no reason why
there should be an exception for these,
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:52:28 +0300
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > A minor heads-up: your script incorrectly uses "tac" instead of
> > "tsc".
>
> If anyone wants to put this into a package, please fix that. :)
>
> Would it be useful to have something like that script in a package? If
> so, which packa
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:45:08PM +0300, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
> A minor heads-up: your script incorrectly uses "tac" instead of "tsc".
If anyone wants to put this into a package, please fix that. :)
Would it be useful to have something like that script in a package? If
so, which package?
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:04:29 +0300
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Philip Hands , 2015-10-06, 09:35:
> > > sed -ne '/^flags\t/{s/\b\(fpu\|tsc\|cx8\|cmov\)\b/%/g;s/[^%
> > > ]*//g;s//i686 SUPPORTED/p}' /proc/cpuinfo
> >
> > Or a more re
* Lars Wirzenius , 2015-10-06, 12:04:
sed -ne '/^flags\t/{s/\b\(fpu\|tsc\|cx8\|cmov\)\b/%/g;s/[^%]*//g;s//i686
SUPPORTED/p}' /proc/cpuinfo
Or a more readable version:
[ $(lscpu | grep ^Flags: | grep -owE 'fpu|tsc|cx8|cmov' | wc -l) = 4 ] && echo
i686 SUPPORTED
Phil's second one works fo
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:47:43AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Philip Hands , 2015-10-06, 09:35:
> > sed -ne
> > '/^flags\t/{s/\b\(fpu\|tsc\|cx8\|cmov\)\b/%/g;s/[^%]*//g;s//i686
> > SUPPORTED/p}' /proc/cpuinfo
>
> Or a more readable version:
>
> [ $(lscpu | grep ^Flags: | grep -owE 'fpu|ts
* Philip Hands , 2015-10-06, 09:35:
sed -ne '/^flags\t/{s/\b\(fpu\|tsc\|cx8\|cmov\)\b/%/g;s/[^%]*//g;s//i686
SUPPORTED/p}' /proc/cpuinfo
Or a more readable version:
[ $(lscpu | grep ^Flags: | grep -owE 'fpu|tsc|cx8|cmov' | wc -l) = 4 ] && echo
i686 SUPPORTED
--
Jakub Wilk
Philip Hands writes:
> For those wanting to check their systems, this may help:
>
> sed -ne '/^flags /{s/\b\(fpu\|tsc\|cx8\|cmov\)\b/%/g;s/[^%]*//g;s//i686
> SUPPORTED/p}' /proc/cpuinfo
Oops - that's meant to be a TAB. Make that:
sed -ne '/^flags\t/{s/\b\(fpu\|tsc\|cx8\|cmov\)\b/%/g;s/
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 20:43 +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings wrote...
>>
>> > We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
>> > the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
>> > libc6, changing the default
On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 20:43 +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote...
>
> > We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> > the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> > libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing th
Ben Hutchings wrote...
> We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
> flavour to 686 (non-PAE).
Could please provide infor
On Sun, 2015-10-04 at 15:03 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> > the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> > libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing t
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 19:15:54 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> question to the Hurd and KFreeBSD maintainers ... change that on these
> platforms too?
As it currently stands, this is not a question when it comes to
dpkg, that specific change is all or nothing. The Debian ←→ GNU
cpu mapping is globa
Söndag den 4:e october 2015, klockan 11:55, skrev Steven Chamberlain:
>
> I have a fanatical preference for compatibility over performance. So
> I prefer not to lose support for 586, but I don't know how practical
> it would be for libc maintainers to do that only for kfreebsd.
>
> kfreebsd-i386
Hi,
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
> flavour to 686 (non-PAE).
Please don't. It already
Hi,
Matthias Klose wrote:
> question to the Hurd and KFreeBSD maintainers ... change that on
> these platforms too?
I have a fanatical preference for compatibility over performance. So
I prefer not to lose support for 586, but I don't know how practical
it would be for libc maintainers to do tha
+++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2015-09-29 22:14 +0100]:
> 2015-09-29 17:38 Wookey:
> >+++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2015-09-29 12:27 +0100]:
> >>
> >>Maybe it would be a good idea to split the architectures, and have one
> >>port for legacy-but-still-sold-or-useful i386 and move the curren
On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 22:06 +0100, Andrew Kanaber wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > On 28 September 2015 at 22:44, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > Data point: I recently heard of at least one person who will need to
> > > buy new hardware as a result of this change.
> > Which hopefully is (a) cheap a
Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 28 September 2015 at 22:44, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Data point: I recently heard of at least one person who will need to
> > buy new hardware as a result of this change.
> Which hopefully is (a) cheap and (b) pay-off via electricity bill due
> to improved power-efficie
Hello,
Matthias Klose, le Thu 01 Oct 2015 19:15:54 +0200, a écrit :
> question to the Hurd and KFreeBSD maintainers ... change that on these
> platforms too?
I don't see a reason not to. i686 libc works fine on hurd-i386 at least.
I haven't tried on kfreebsd.
Samuel
question to the Hurd and KFreeBSD maintainers ... change that on these platforms
too?
On 28.09.2015 23:14, Ben Hutchings wrote:
We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
libc6, changing the defau
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> As another data point, I have a customer which uses Debian on Vortex86
> based CPU and they are actually selling small embedded computers based on
> this CPU to various manufacturers (for production monitoring purpose).
>
> So there are curr
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Iustin Pop wrote:
> Anyway, what I mean to say: thanks for finally motivating me to upgrade.
> This move definitely makes sense, but I wouldn't be so sure that there
> are no actual production systems running on a 586-only CPU.
As another data point, I have a customer which us
* Iustin Pop , 2015-09-30, 00:04:
My trusty soekris 5501 has an AMD Geode LX, which (AFAIK) is still only
i586. It seems it is missing one instruction (NOPL) from being a full
686 chip :)
gas won't emit NOPLs for 686, so you should be safe:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-08/msg00194.html
"6.
On 29 September 2015 at 17:24, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> As of Knights Landing, it is based on Airmont Atom cores which indeed support
> x86_64.
>
Correct.
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
On 2015-09-28 22:14:44, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
> flavour to 686 (non-PAE).
>
> S
2015-09-29 17:38 Wookey:
+++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2015-09-29 12:27 +0100]:
Maybe it would be a good idea to split the architectures, and have one
port for legacy-but-still-sold-or-useful i386 and move the current i386
to only support newer, common-use i686 hardware.
It seems to me t
+++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2015-09-29 12:27 +0100]:
> 2015-09-28 23:34 Josh Triplett:
> >Many distributions have already dropped that support, making it all the
> >more valuable that Debian hasn't. I can certainly understand dropping
> >i386 and i486, but i586 remains useful today precisel
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Contrary to what I thought, the Xeon Phi processors are actually 64-bit
. However I think they're a little too weird to support with the same
binaries - no CMOV, no MMX and no SSE.
I think we’ve both been mistaken by Intel documents describing Xeon P
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 06:48:26AM +, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:31:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > [Please CC me; not subscribed to -devel.]
> > Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > So far as I know, all current Quark processors have errata that make
> > > them unstable, not to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Enigmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWCnjpAAoJEMvmu05dmtOlhhAP/jrONPeihYKvvXYr34m6e47B
aw3MoFNkhT3NOSMujd3mfqPIejrDwbuV3aC7puvS9DCLZDPpxqbXaUnEOj9fe/dW
MJvTn9A1vNitJNKt7cJ+OYkl+EP+dV2BIXy29+C1mId3SozbBWbFRjWBgTfVp
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 10:02 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Since the 686-class, introduced with the Pentium Pro, is now almost 20
> years old, we believe there are few Debian systems still running that
> have 586-class or hybrid processors. The on
2015-09-28 23:34 Josh Triplett:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
flavour to 686 (non-PAE).
Si
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Since the 686-class, introduced with the Pentium Pro, is now almost 20
years old, we believe there are few Debian systems still running that
have 586-class or hybrid processors. The only such processors
apparently still available for sale are
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:31:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [Please CC me; not subscribed to -devel.]
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > So far as I know, all current Quark processors have errata that make
> > them unstable, not to mention totally insecure, when running ordinary
> > i386 binaries.
>
[Please CC me; not subscribed to -devel.]
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 15:34 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> > > the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 int
On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 15:34 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> > the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> > libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 k
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
> flavour to 686 (non-PAE).
>
> Since the 686-class, intr
On Sep 28, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> the current release cycle.
Yes please.
> Indeed, the likely reasons for users to choose i386 over amd64 today
> are to reduce memory consumption or to run i386 binaries for which the
> sour
Am 28.09.2015 um 23:14 schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
> flavour to 686 (non-PAE).
>
>
Hello,
On 28 September 2015 at 22:44, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> > the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> > libc6, changing the default
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
> the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
> libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
> flavour to 686 (non-P
We propose to drop support for i386 processors older than 686-class in
the current release cycle. This would include folding libc6-i686 into
libc6, changing the default target for gcc, and changing the 586 kernel
flavour to 686 (non-PAE).
Since the 686-class, introduced with the Pentium Pro, is n
44 matches
Mail list logo
