Ian Jackson writes:
>> The 486-class processors that would no longer be supported are:
>> 1. All x86 processors with names including '486'
>
> I'm still running the machine below, and it would be irritating to
> have to replace it.
...
> vendor_id : CentaurHauls
> cpu family: 6
> model
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 09:43 +, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 Dec 2011, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > On 11/21/2011 07:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Since we're theorising, rather than talking about actual users, my
> > > theory is that these are sold as replacements for installed syst
On Wednesday 07 Dec 2011, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 07:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Since we're theorising, rather than talking about actual users, my
> > theory is that these are sold as replacements for installed systems,
> > which will run the exact same software as the original - n
On 11/21/2011 07:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Since we're theorising, rather than talking about actual users, my
> theory is that these are sold as replacements for installed systems,
> which will run the exact same software as the original - not Debian
> 7.0. It would be silly to start a new dep
Hello,
2011/11/23 Matthias Klose :
> On 11/19/2011 11:42 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> (Later it should be increased
>> further, and eventually i386 should be reduced to a partial architecture
>> that may be installed on amd64 systems.) This would allow the use of
>> optimisations and new instruct
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:08PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i486/libcrypto.so.1.0.0: cpuid
> /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i486/libcrypto.so.1.0.0: rdtsc
I should probably drop that i486 variant anyway, since i486
is already the default. I should also consider dropping the
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 07:20:11PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>
> I think it is time to increase
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 00:44 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 11/19/2011 11:42 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
> > long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
> > and now require a minimum of a 486-class
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> Where the relevant patches added to binutils and gcc for this?
See for yourself: http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsub
Matthias Klose writes:
> On 11/19/2011 11:42 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
>> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
>> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>>
>> I think it is ti
On 11/20/2011 01:08 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 22:42:11 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
>> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
>> and now require a minimum of a 4
On 11/19/2011 11:42 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>
> I think it is time to increase the minimum requi
Ben Hutchings writes:
>> Does /proc/cpuinfo with the exist on non-Linux architectures? If
>> yes, do they use the same format?
>
> It is Linux-specific, but included in FreeBSD's Linux compatibility module.
> I don't know whether Debian kFreeBSD loads that by default.
It is loaded. /proc/cpuinfo
Le mardi 22 novembre 2011 à 16:19 -0500, John D. Hendrickson and Sara
Darnell a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette is apparently easily amused.
I am afraid that text cannot convey my feelings adequately, so please
find here a more appropriate reply:
http://malsain.org/~joss/amused.jpg
Rest assured that
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:24:38PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell, le Tue 22 Nov 2011 16:19:03 -0500, a
> écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette is apparently easily amused.
> >
> > He harasses me every time I use debian-devel mailing list, apparently
> > automaticall
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:47:21PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings , 2011-11-20, 20:48:
> >Use of CPUID is probably safe in practice since most 486 models do
> >implement it, though userland should really read /proc/cpuinfo.
> >The other uses may be conditional on a CPU feature test but
John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell, le Tue 22 Nov 2011 16:19:03 -0500, a
écrit :
> Josselin Mouette is apparently easily amused.
>
> He harasses me every time I use debian-devel mailing list, apparently
> automaticall (which is illegal in my country - though for now it's ok).
>
>
> Josselin M
Josselin Mouette is apparently easily amused.
He harasses me every time I use debian-devel mailing list, apparently automaticall (which is illegal
in my country - though for now it's ok).
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Or in legacy; I've read about wishes of their own patent problems,
> capice? B
John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell, le Tue 22 Nov 2011 14:00:56 -0500, a
écrit :
> CMOV saves 1 clock + 1 dword.
Errr, and branch misprediction?
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian
CMOV, quick comment.
Many apps don't reliably optimize -O3. CMOV saves 1 clock + 1 dword. There far lower branches to
pick for debian to grow on (unless it's like req. to drive androids or real important).
(note CMOV is not Ben's agenda as far as I have read. I say nothing there but
good l
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:47:20PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes ("Increasing minimum 'i386' processor"):
> > The 486-class processors that would no longer be supported are:
> > 1. All x86 processors with names including '486'
>
OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du mardi 22 novembre 2011, vers 18:28,
Bastian Blank disait :
>> > The 486-class processors that would no longer be supported are:
>> > 1. All x86 processors with names including '486'
>> I'm still running the machine below, and it would be irritating to
>> have
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:47:20PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes ("Increasing minimum 'i386' processor"):
> > The 486-class processors that would no longer be supported are:
> > 1. All x86 processors with names including '486'
> I
Ben Hutchings writes ("Increasing minimum 'i386' processor"):
> The 486-class processors that would no longer be supported are:
> 1. All x86 processors with names including '486'
I'm still running the machine below, and it would be irritating to
have
* Ben Hutchings , 2011-11-20, 20:48:
Use of CPUID is probably safe in practice since most 486 models do
implement it, though userland should really read /proc/cpuinfo. The
other uses may be conditional on a CPU feature test but may well be
bugs.
Is format of /proc/cpuinfo documented anywhere
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:41:47AM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:31:43 +, Ben Hutchings
> wrote:
> > 1. Find all ELF executable/library files.
> > 2. Either:
> >a. Work out which instructions should be excluded, depending on the
> > directory.
> >b. Skip fi
> Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 23:44 +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
[…]
>> While i might agree with the exclusion of 486 cpu classes (somewhere
>> i have a Winchip C6 200 MHz but i consider it unusable except for
>> very limited tasks), i think that excluding 586 could
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:31:43 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 13:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:08PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Would it be worth adding a lintian check for instructions that may not
> > > be supported (bearing in mind th
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 02:16:14AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> How does one do a simple test to see if one is on the death list?
There isn't one (yet).
> # grep -c 86 /proc/cpuinfo
> 0
> # lshw | grep -c 86
> 0
This should tell you if the processor supports Pentium features:
grep '
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:44:03PM +0100, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 16:30 +0100, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
> [..]
> >>Apart from that I wonder how many "embedded" x86 CPUs (instruction set <
> >>586)
> >>are out there. Are they still so
How does one do a simple test to see if one is on the death list?
# grep -c 86 /proc/cpuinfo
0
# lshw | grep -c 86
0
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87
On 2011-11-21, Jon Dowland wrote:
> I think it would be a pity if Debian was held back to support such a tiny
> minority of potential users.
Why can't the others use amd64? In theory the audience of the i386
"port" would be non-64bit capable processors anyway. I know that this
includes certain
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:44:38PM +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
> These processors are about 15 years old but are still useful and usable
> today and maybe still for Wheezy+1.
Bear in mind that when wheezy+1 is released, wheezy will still be supported for
some time. So the *actual* time that De
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 16:30 +0100, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
[..]
Apart from that I wonder how many "embedded" x86 CPUs (instruction set < 586)
are out there. Are they still sold in current products?
As I said, Soekris still seems to have some for sale,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 07:48:30AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:08PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Would it be worth adding a lintian check for instructions that may not
> > > be supported (bearin
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:29:01AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> People save power to save money, to save cooling, or to save the environment.
>
Right, but far from relevant when comparing old systems to new systems
in terms of power saving.
> Buying new hardware isn't the way to save money
>
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:09 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > I think that would be a pity if Debian will not provide anymore a kernel
> > > for this old cpus.
> >
> > Maybe you think it's a waste to replace old PCs, but in many cases it's
> > a waste
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > If you have tasks which require little CPU power (such as a DNS server)
> > and the system is idle most of the time then comparing the idle power
> > use is the most important thing.
>
> Uhm.. yes, its the "most important thing" for you to decide
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:30:22PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > well, its obvious that the absolute power consumption, which is what
> > you measure, has increased, given that the performance of the systems
> > has increased as well.
>
> I
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> well, its obvious that the absolute power consumption, which is what
> you measure, has increased, given that the performance of the systems
> has increased as well.
If you are setting up a network of machines for bitcoin mining then it's most
li
Hi Russel,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 09:09:58PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > I think that would be a pity if Debian will not provide anymore a kernel
> > > for this old cpus.
> >
> > Maybe you think it's a waste to replace old PCs, but in many case
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I think that would be a pity if Debian will not provide anymore a kernel
> > for this old cpus.
>
> Maybe you think it's a waste to replace old PCs, but in many cases it's
> a waste of money to keep them running. Electricity isn't getting any
> chea
Hi,
On Montag, 21. November 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Maybe you think it's a waste to replace old PCs, but in many cases it's
> a waste of money to keep them running. Electricity isn't getting any
> cheaper and modern systems are much better at power-saving.
This is true, but not everywhere o
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:08PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > Would it be worth adding a lintian check for instructions that may not
> > be supported (bearing in mind that a fair few packages will need to
> > ove
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 23:44 +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
> On 20/11/2011 20:36, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If that is so, we should instead think forward to 686-class
> > with CMOV as a minimum for wheezy + 1. Use of CMOV instructions is an
> > important optimisation and they *are* generated direct
Ben's right if he needs it, 386 has many interesting img and tfpt alternatives. Down the road,
maybe again. ahh those 386 days!
--=20 spam man
Official: you owe $100 penalty to your State, send it now or face action. Send
it to me ok?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@list
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 13:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:08PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > Would it be worth adding a lintian check for instructions that may not
> > be supported (bearing in mind that a fair few packages will need to
> > override i
On 20/11/2011 20:36, Ben Hutchings wrote:
If that is so, we should instead think forward to 686-class
with CMOV as a minimum for wheezy + 1. Use of CMOV instructions is an
important optimisation and they *are* generated directly by compilers.
While i might agree with the exclusion of 486 cpu c
Hi Ben,
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:08PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Would it be worth adding a lintian check for instructions that may not
> be supported (bearing in mind that a fair few packages will need to
> override it)?
I've wanted this for a while, but haven't been sure how to go abou
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 21:29 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:36:43PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > So far as I'm aware, none of the above will be generated directly by
> > compilers (though they may be available through 'intrinsics'). So it
> > may be that there is lit
Interestingly, I found the following libraries on a current 'unstable'
system already using 586 instructions and not installed in an
appropriate subdirectory:
/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgcrypt.so.11.7.0: cpuid
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i486/libcrypto.so.1.0.0: cpuid
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i486/libcrypt
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:36:43PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> So far as I'm aware, none of the above will be generated directly by
> compilers (though they may be available through 'intrinsics'). So it
> may be that there is little to be gained by moving to 586-class as a
> minimum. If that
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 18:02 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-11-20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > As I said, I think they may still be supportable - the kernel config
> > allows selection of CONFIG_M586TSC and CONFIG_MATH_EMULATION, though
> > whether the result actually works is another matter.
>
On 2011-11-20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> As I said, I think they may still be supportable - the kernel config
> allows selection of CONFIG_M586TSC and CONFIG_MATH_EMULATION, though
> whether the result actually works is another matter.
So what are we actually requiring when moving from 486 to 586?
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 15:14 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 19, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > I think it is time to increase the minimum requirement to 586-class, if
> > not for wheezy then immediately after.
> I agree, it's time to weight the costs and benefits of supporting
> obsolete hardware
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 16:30 +0100, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
> Dear Raphaël,
> Raphaël Hertzog schrieb am 20.11.2011 08:40:
> > On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >> Also possibly:
> >> 6. DM&P/SiS Vortex86 and Vortex86SX. These supposedly have all
> >>586-class features except an FPU, an
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 15:04 +0100, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Le 20/11/2011 12:56, Adrian Knoth a écrit :
> > On behalf of the multimedia camp, I'd like to point out that we'd love
> > to see SSE as the lowest common denominator on the x86 platform.
> >
> > I'm fully aware that we can't, not even wit
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 08:40 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Also possibly:
> > 6. DM&P/SiS Vortex86 and Vortex86SX. These supposedly have all
> >586-class features except an FPU, and we could probably keep FPU
> >emulation for them.
>
> FWIW,
Kai Wasserbäch writes:
> installations with CPUs with an instruction set < 586 are still in use? Does
> popcon collect such information?
popcon does not but smolt does. Unfortunately smotl ITP is still
stuck. Meanwhile you can look at the data it has collected from opensuse
and fedora users:
ech
Dear Raphaël,
Raphaël Hertzog schrieb am 20.11.2011 08:40:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Also possibly:
>> 6. DM&P/SiS Vortex86 and Vortex86SX. These supposedly have all
>>586-class features except an FPU, and we could probably keep FPU
>>emulation for them.
>
> FWIW, I d
Dear Ben,
Ben Hutchings schrieb am 19.11.2011 23:42:
> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>
> I think it is time to increase the minim
On Nov 19, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I think it is time to increase the minimum requirement to 586-class, if
> not for wheezy then immediately after.
I agree, it's time to weight the costs and benefits of supporting
obsolete hardware at the expense of most users.
> (Later it should be increased
> f
On Nov 20, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On behalf of the multimedia camp, I'd like to point out that we'd love
> to see SSE as the lowest common denominator on the x86 platform.
Can you show a rough list of the relevant packages?
Maybe older CPUs would be too much slow anyway for many of them, so
target
Adrian Knoth writes:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:40:47AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> > 6. DM&P/SiS Vortex86 and Vortex86SX. These supposedly have all
>> >586-class features except an FPU, and we could probably keep FPU
>> >emulation for them.
>>
>> FWIW, I do run Debian
Le 20/11/2011 12:56, Adrian Knoth a écrit :
On behalf of the multimedia camp, I'd like to point out that we'd love
to see SSE as the lowest common denominator on the x86 platform.
I'm fully aware that we can't, not even with i586 being the baseline.
Since many multimedia applications don't do ru
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:40:47AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi!
> > 6. DM&P/SiS Vortex86 and Vortex86SX. These supposedly have all
> >586-class features except an FPU, and we could probably keep FPU
> >emulation for them.
>
> FWIW, I do run Debian on such systems albeit with a cust
Guillem Jover writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 22:42:11 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
>> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
>> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>>
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Also possibly:
> 6. DM&P/SiS Vortex86 and Vortex86SX. These supposedly have all
>586-class features except an FPU, and we could probably keep FPU
>emulation for them.
FWIW, I do run Debian on such systems albeit with a custom kernel.
Given those
Hi!
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 22:42:11 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
> long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
> and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
>
> I think it is time to increas
On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 00:55 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
> > 5. AMD/NSC Geode GX1, Geode SC1100, Elan SC4xx and SC5xx
>
> Does this mean that "AMD Geode LX" as mentioned in
> http://pcengines.ch/alix.htm still works?
[...]
Yes, the later 'Geode' processors are 686-c
Ben Hutchings writes:
> 5. AMD/NSC Geode GX1, Geode SC1100, Elan SC4xx and SC5xx
Does this mean that "AMD Geode LX" as mentioned in
http://pcengines.ch/alix.htm still works?
damager:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 5
model : 10
m
The i386 architecture was the first in Linux and in Debian, but we have
long since dropped support for the original i386-compatible processors
and now require a minimum of a 486-class processor.
I think it is time to increase the minimum requirement to 586-class, if
not for wheezy then immediately
72 matches
Mail list logo
