-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 30 April 2003 16:29, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Anthony DeRobertis
> | Please explain how I can get a similar system, running on a similar
> | amount of power, and with no moving parts (i.e., no fans) using, even a
> | P-II.
>
> http://www
* Anthony DeRobertis
| On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:56, Chris Cheney wrote:
|
| > I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
| > have or can not purchase a system that is less than 7 years old.
|
| I have a brand new 486-class system with 32MB of RAM. It's less than 6
| mo
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 12:52:11PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:56, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
> > I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
> > have or can not purchase a system that is less than 7 years old.
>
> I have a brand new 486-class s
Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would surely be nice to see performance numbers from actual
> applications. After all, the applications are normally doing
> some things besides low level atomic operations.
Indeed, it would be interesting to find out how often applications
invoke th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 21:22, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> That won't help anything. "Compiling without threads" isn't really
> supported on Linux: if threads are not used, this is always a
> link-time/runtime issue, not a compile time issue.
Right, fo
Morgon Kanter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. L) wrote:
>> I think the performance loss for applications like KDE will be
>> significant. I doubt that providing two versions of KDE (i386
>> and i486+) would be feasible.
> Not starting a flamew
Morgon Kanter wrote:
Not starting a flamewar here, but in all honesty, who is going to try
to use KDE on a 386 anyway? Actually, while we are on that, who is even
going to try to use X at all on a 386?
Probably nobody will. IMO, it is the worse that the KDE binaries have
to be built for i386 comp
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. L) wrote:
> I think the performance loss for applications like KDE will be
> significant. I doubt that providing two versions of KDE (i386
> and i486+) would be feasible.
Not starting a flamewar here, but in all honesty, who is going to try
Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a) The patch gets merged upstream. It won't hurt anyone who is
> building i486+ optimized binaries and fixes a real bug.
Upstream won't accept the patch, because of the performance penalty.
Even if upstream accepts the patch, that won't be before
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 29 April 2003 07:50, you wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, look at my patch again. If you build without i486 optimization,
> > the compiler will see only the extern declaration for
> > __exchange_and_add().
>
> I see
Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, look at my patch again. If you build without i486 optimization,
> the compiler will see only the extern declaration for
> __exchange_and_add().
I see. What sonames do you suggest to give to the two copies of
libstdc++? You once said you'd call them
At 11:36 28/04/2003 +0200, you wrote:
We should still discuss an i686 (or i586) optimized port, but fixing
the problem will make it possible to seperate the issues.
Indeed! This is (suppossed to be)? just a first step, in order to solve the
ABI compatibility issue with libstdc++5
An i586/i686 opt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 28 April 2003 23:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > They have to be compiled for i386, as they have always been.
> > If they were compiled for i486, they would not run on i386
> > anyway, with or withou
Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They have to be compiled for i386, as they have always been.
> If they were compiled for i486, they would not run on i386
> anyway, with or without the bug.
But if they are compiled for i386, they won't run on other Linux
systems, thus losing binary com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 28 April 2003 22:00, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> So should the standard binaries (apt, groff, OpenGL libraries, kde
> libraries) be compiled for 386 or 486?
>
> If 486, how can you run the packages o
Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. Any reason why the patch below should not work?
Yes, plenty.
> When __exchange_and_add is an extern function, the implementation
> does not matter to applications using it. Binaries optimized for
> i486 or higher can still use the inline functi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 26 April 2003 16:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Is it possible to "fix" this (ie, provide ABI compatible versions for
> i386 and i486) without breaking stuff? 386s are faster than many other
> pieces of hardware that we still support, so dro
Guido Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:05:50PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > I agree, the vast majority of our users can afford newer machines. So, I
> > think we should drop m68k, mips and other similar unfashionable old
> > archs, don't you think? The majority of our users will be hap
I demand that Gunnar Wolf may or may not have uselessly CC'd to me...
[snip]
>> I thought that in-kernel emulation would have solved the gap between 486
>> DX and SX.
> For practical purposes, yes... Although emulated FP is really, REALLY slow.
Is it safe to mention ARM710 in this thread? :-)
-
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:23:03PM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> At 19:55 26/04/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
> >> and go for i486.
> >
> >Is there much perf
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 08:45, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> At 12:52 27/04/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Please explain how I can get a similar system, running on a similar
> >amount of power, and with no moving parts (i.e., no fans) using, even a
> >P-II.
>
> Hey! Where did you get that from?
> I'd love t
At 12:52 27/04/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:56, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
> have or can not purchase a system that is less than 7 years old.
I have a brand new 486-class system with 32MB of RAM. It's less than 6
mon
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 26 Apr 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le sam 26/04/2003 à 02:59, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> > > For the original problem, it surely should be possible to build 386 and
> > > 486+
> > > versions of libstdc++ and include both in the distro, with
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
>Actually, for most of those old 486's, replacing them with
>new 486's would be much more sustainable, due to the
>lessened power draw.
>
Since manufacturing computers takes _very_ much energy I doubt that.
On Saturday 26 April 2003 05:08, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:36:56AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > What about the Via C3? That was introduced not too long ago, runs
> > moderately quickly (~1GHz) with low power consumption, but IIRC doesn't
> > support the i686 instruction
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 12:15, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
> > have or can not purchase a system that is less than 7 years old.
>
> Your non-sustainable Western consumerism is showing.
Actually, for most of those old 486's, re
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:56, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
> have or can not purchase a system that is less than 7 years old.
I have a brand new 486-class system with 32MB of RAM. It's less than 6
months old.
Please explain how I can g
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:05:50PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I agree, the vast majority of our users can afford newer machines. So, I
> think we should drop m68k, mips and other similar unfashionable old
> archs, don't you think? The majority of our users will be happy...
I'm not sure where the m
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> For practical purposes, yes... Although emulated FP is really, REALLY
> slow. I installed a machine to be a X terminal about two years ago -
> 386SX, 8MB RAM. It worked fine, yes... But MUCH slower than a
> similarly-configured machine
* Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 22:29]:
> > > >>> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
> > > >>> and go for i486.
> > > >> Is there much performance improvement in dropping i386 in favour of
> > > >> i486+?
> > >
> > > > - Integrated math coprocessor
> > >>> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
> > >>> and go for i486.
> > >> Is there much performance improvement in dropping i386 in favour of
> > >> i486+?
> >
> > > - Integrated math coprocessor ( why does libc still check for its
> > > availability? ) [...
> > It may be relatively cheap and easy for *you* to buy a two-year-old
> > system, but I don't believe that in this case you are representative
> > of nearly enough of our users to be a useful example.
>
> I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
> have or can not purc
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:53:04PM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> re 'at run time': Does that mean that at compile time there are
> multiple snippets of functionally-equivalent code compiled to support
> varied run-time arch's?
The support is actually in the runtime linker. libssl is compiled
* Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 12:21]:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:08:12AM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
>
> > For openssl there is a huge improvement. I was doing benchmarks on
> > openssl (they were done for internally at a company I no longer work
>
> OpenSSL can (and already does
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 05:07:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:55:08AM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> > * Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 10:26]:
>
> > > 486SX.
>
> > I thought that in-kernel emulation would have solved the gap between 486
> > DX and SX.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:56:13AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 06:38:34PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > It may be relatively cheap and easy for *you* to buy a two-year-old
> > system, but I don't believe that in this case you are representative
> > of nearly enough of our
I demand that Bart Trojanowski may or may not have CCed to me WITHOUT MY
ASKING FOR THAT...
> * Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 10:26]:
>> I demand that José Luis Tallón may or may not have written...
>>> At 19:55 26/04/2003 +1000, you wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200,
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:55:08AM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> * Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 10:26]:
> > 486SX.
> I thought that in-kernel emulation would have solved the gap between 486
> DX and SX.
It works just as well for 386SX as for 486SX.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:08:12AM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> For openssl there is a huge improvement. I was doing benchmarks on
> openssl (they were done for internally at a company I no longer work
OpenSSL can (and already does) drop in the CPU-specific variants at run
time in an ABI-com
At 14:17 26/04/2003 +0100, you wrote:
I demand that José Luis Tallón may or may not have written...
> At 19:55 26/04/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
>>> and go for
* Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 10:26]:
> I demand that José Luis Tallón may or may not have written...
>
> > At 19:55 26/04/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >>> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/impor
In chiark.mail.debian.devel, Matthias Klose wrote:
>- Trying to "fix" this resulted in libstdc++5 packages built for
> i386 and ix86, and selecting the atomicity implementation based on
> target cpu macros. This approach doesn't work, as I learned now.
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003
* Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 05:57]:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
> > and go for i486.
>
> Is there much performance improvement in dropping i386 in favour of
> i486+?
I demand that José Luis Tallón may or may not have written...
> At 19:55 26/04/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
>>> and go for i486.
>> Is there much performance i
* Grzegorz B. Prokopski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030426 04:45]:
> Anyway - I am not using any true 386 systems since years,
> so maybe first solution would be to just make i386 mean
> "i486 and higher". If there's *real* need for i386, then
> it should be possible to create i386true sub-distro in the f
At 19:55 26/04/2003 +1000, you wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
> and go for i486.
Is there much performance improvement in dropping i386 in favour of
i486+?
- Integrated math coprocess
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
>> and go for i486.
> Is there much performance improvement in dropping i386 in favour of
> i486+?
I've no idea,
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
> and go for i486.
Is there much performance improvement in dropping i386 in favour of
i486+?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PR
* Russell Coker
| My logtools package is written in C++ with the STL. It performs
| well and will be quite useful to anyone who is running Apache for
| multiple domains on a 386.
No offense, but it is seriously slow. IIRC, it's a magnitude slower
than mergelog, especially when merging a lot of
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:56:13AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
> have or can not purchase a system that is less than 7 years old.
That's really not so relevant, even if correct. If they already have
a shitload of Pentiums which
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I'd vote for 1 or
>
> 1a. create a stripped down version for i386, i.e. required/important
> and go for i486.
I'll drink to that!
--
Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are confused; but this is your normal state.
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 21:37, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le sam 26/04/2003 Ã 02:59, Matthew Palmer a Ãcrit :
> > For the original problem, it surely should be possible to build 386 and 486+
> > versions of libstdc++ and include both in the distro, with linker magic (or
> > installer magic) to tell th
W liście z sob, 26-04-2003, godz. 09:56, Chris Cheney pisze:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 06:38:34PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > It may be relatively cheap and easy for *you* to buy a two-year-old
> > system, but I don't believe that in this case you are representative
> > of nearly enough of our
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:56, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I also find it hard to believe that the majority of our users do not
> have or can not purchase a system that is less than 7 years old. Being
> that is how old the i686 sub-arch is... I once attempted to install
> Debian 2.1 on a Pentium 90, it took
Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 1. drop i386 support completely: simple but painful
> 2. create a crippled distro for really old systems (e.g. i386 and i486)
> 3. keep everything the i386 way: slow and incompatible
> 4. like 3, but provide alternatives for new systems (i686+):
>
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 06:38:34PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> It may be relatively cheap and easy for *you* to buy a two-year-old
> system, but I don't believe that in this case you are representative
> of nearly enough of our users to be a useful example.
I also find it hard to believe that th
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 05:06:56AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The options we currently have are:
>
> 1. drop i386 support completely: simple but painful
> 2. create a crippled distro for really old systems (e.g. i386 and i486)
> 3. keep everything the i386 way: slow and incompatible
> 4. like
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> It's a compromise, but I think it's still better than forcing everyone
> on the i486 compatibility that is just as obsolete as i386 (i.e. you won't
> buy any _new_ i486 machines in order to run Debian).
I've bought one, the company I work for has
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 05:06:56AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> No, if you disable cmov on i686, that won't make Athlons and P4s faster
> than simply using -march=i586. If all packages are available for i386,
> the C3 and K6 users just won't be able to use the fast packages but can
> still work. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 26 April 2003 04:21, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 03:41:31AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This would be a good border, but we would need to provide a much larger
> > subset of packages (if not all the distro) for 386
On 26 Apr 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le sam 26/04/2003 à 02:59, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> > For the original problem, it surely should be possible to build 386 and 486+
> > versions of libstdc++ and include both in the distro, with linker magic (or
> > installer magic) to tell the difference
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 03:41:31AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le sam 26/04/2003 à 03:15, Chris Cheney a écrit :
> > i686 has been common for 6 years now (1997 P2/K6), so its hardly just in
> > the past two years. ;)
>
> Err, k6 is not a 686 as to my knowledge.
Between this post "http://gcc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 April 2003 19:31, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > No, the only thing that is enforced is that i386 systems cannot use the
> > i486+ ABI. It is a very possible solution to have use
Hi,
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:59:19 +, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> For the original problem, it surely should be possible to build 386 and 486+
> versions of libstdc++ and include both in the distro, with linker magic (or
> installer magic) to tell the difference?
Different ABI. Doesn't work. See
ht
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:08, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > Realistically, are there any C++ apps on the planet that wouldn't choke
> > an i386 to death anyway?
>
> There's nothing wrong with the performance of C++ apps. Years ago I did
> lots of C++ development on a 16MHz 386SX running DOS. The problem
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:36:56AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> What about the Via C3? That was introduced not too long ago, runs
> moderately quickly (~1GHz) with low power consumption, but IIRC doesn't
> support the i686 instruction set.
The issue with this appears to be a gcc bug with respe
Le sam 26/04/2003 à 03:15, Chris Cheney a écrit :
> i686 has been common for 6 years now (1997 P2/K6), so its hardly just in
> the past two years. ;)
Err, k6 is not a 686 as to my knowledge.
> I agree the split should be at the i686 border
> assuming this doesn't harm athlon systems.
This would
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:59:19AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> For the original problem, it surely should be possible to build 386
> and 486+ versions of libstdc++ and include both in the distro, with
> linker magic (or installer magic) to tell the difference?
We've got /usr/lib/i386 and /usr/l
Le sam 26/04/2003 à 02:59, Matthew Palmer a écrit :
> For the original problem, it surely should be possible to build 386 and 486+
> versions of libstdc++ and include both in the distro, with linker magic (or
> installer magic) to tell the difference?
That would not be enough. We need specific ver
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:15:05PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
| On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
| > If we really want to split i386 in 'compatible' and 'fast', the i686 border
| > makes sense because users who care about speed probably bought the machine
| > during t
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:20:33AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > Another question, of course, is what does supporting 386s lose us? I've
>
> Binary compatibility with other distributions & usability of 3rd-party
> C++ binaries. That was what star
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> If we really want to split i386 in 'compatible' and 'fast', the i686 border
> makes sense because users who care about speed probably bought the machine
> during the last two years and those should be i686 compatible.
i686 has been
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:20:33AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Another question, of course, is what does supporting 386s lose us? I've
Binary compatibility with other distributions & usability of 3rd-party
C++ binaries. That was what started this thread, remember?
--
Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, [ISO-8859-1] "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> a) Is anybody actually doing this, today?
Hell yes. I have 3 of them in the field. Running woody+updates,
custom kernel, and absolutely nothing else.
> b) Do you then have 10MB or 100MB ethernet in that computer?
> Can you even p
On 20030425T180852+0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> The problem is STL
... or rather, its abuse.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta
http://www.cc.j
On Apr 25, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I bet someone would rebuild base+some extras using i386 target compiler
>and make it available, if Debian did that. They would probably serve a
>few hundred users total, at best. I don't think it would be too much to
>expect debian-i386 to bec
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> (i.e. you won't buy any _new_ i486 machines in order to run Debian).
Though, buying a new i486 isn't as unusual as you might think.
http://www.soekris.com/net4501.htm
http://www.soekris.com/net4511.htm
http://www.soekris.com/net452
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:51:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Should Debian further support the i386 target, or make (at least i486)
>> the default for code generation? Asking because I'm unsure how to
>> provide the libstdc++5 package.
>
> Realist
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 11:55:08AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:26:41AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Realistically, are there any C++ apps on the planet that wouldn't choke
> > > an i386 to death an
Le ven 25/04/2003 à 16:06, Craig Dickson a écrit :
> The slowest machine I ever work with these days is an old Pentium-90 with
> 32 MB RAM. I won't even put X on that anymore, though it did have X back
> when it was my only Linux machine.
But 486's and Pentiums still make very good TX boxen, so ha
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 25 April 2003 15:43, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > See the beginning of this thread; the problem is that libstdc++ has
> > drawn a line between 386 and 486.
>
> No, the only thing that is enforced is that i386 systems cannot u
On Friday 25 April 2003 08:06 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 25 April 2003 15:43, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 01:37:04PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > > Hmm... I'd argue for putting the split at either 386 vs 486+ (the
> > > latter at least has a math copro and CMPX
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Realistically, are there any C++ apps on the planet that wouldn't choke
> an i386 to death anyway?
groff
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks.
Looking for a developer in St. Louis? http://web.springies.com/~ats/
I do not fear computers
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:26:41AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:51:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Should Debian further support the i386 target, or make (at least i486)
> > > the default for code
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:26:41AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:51:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Should Debian further support the i386 target, or make (at least i486)
> > the default for code generation? Asking because I'm unsure how to
> > provide the li
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:26:41AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:51:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Should Debian further support the i386 target, or make (at least i486)
> > the default for code generation? Asking because I'm unsure how to
> > provide the libstdc+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 April 2003 15:43, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 01:37:04PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > Hmm... I'd argue for putting the split at either 386 vs 486+ (the latter
> > at least has a math copro and CMPXCHG), or at 386-
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:51:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Should Debian further support the i386 target, or make (at least i486)
> the default for code generation? Asking because I'm unsure how to
> provide the libstdc++5 package.
Realistically, are there any C++ apps on the planet that wo
Ben Collins wrote:
> I bet someone would rebuild base+some extras using i386 target compiler
> and make it available, if Debian did that. They would probably serve a
> few hundred users total, at best. I don't think it would be too much to
> expect debian-i386 to become a side-project.
debian-i38
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 01:37:04PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Hmm... I'd argue for putting the split at either 386 vs 486+ (the latter
> at least has a math copro and CMPXCHG), or at 386-pentium vs 686+.
See the beginning of this thread; the problem is that libstdc++ has drawn a
line betwee
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 07:30:34AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> I bet someone would rebuild base+some extras using i386 target compiler
> and make it available, if Debian did that. They would probably serve a few
> hundred users total, at best. I don't think it would be too much to expect
> debian-
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:32:05AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Does anybody know how/if other Distributions reacted to this issue?
> Suse, Redhat et.al. afaik have been using gcc-3.x for more than one
> release.
"Minimum: Pentium-class"
http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/technical/
I can't
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 01:37:04PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> I say this because the original pentium didn't introduce a lot of new
> features other than the two pipelines for which you only need some insn
> scheduling that's fully compatible with the 486, and IIRC wasn't sold
> nearly as we
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:51:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Should Debian further support the i386 target, or make (at least i486)
> the default for code generation? Asking because I'm unsure how to
> provide the libstdc++5 package.
FWIW, hurd-i386 doesn't now, nor will it likely ever run o
"Martin v. LÃwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
>> So using a 386 as a router and firewall, which it is perfectly capable
>> of hardwarewise
[snip]
> b) Do you then have 10MB or 100MB ethernet in that computer?
> Can you even put a 100MB ethernet card into the computer?
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hmm. Did anybody measure the performance increase in a "typical"
userspace-CPU-intensive program when built with i586-only options
(as opposed to "optimize for i586+ but generate compatible code)?
In the current issue, it is not that much a question of performance,
but of co
* "Martin v. L?wis" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> >So using a 386 as a router and firewall, which it is perfectly capable
> >of hardwarewise
>
> Is that really the case?
Yes.
> a) Is anybody actually doing this, today?
Yes.
> b) Do you then have 10MB or 100MB ethernet in
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:53:40PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> It does sound like it would be a good idea to have a separate build for 386
> and 486, then we could optimise everything else for 586+.
Hmm... I'd argue for putting the split at either 386 vs 486+ (the latter
at least has a
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:13:08PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On pe, 2003-04-25 at 11:09, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> > They just don't support i386 anymore.
> >
> > http://www.suse.de/en/private/products/suse_linux/i386/system_requirements.html
> > http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/technica
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:09:21PM +0200, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> >So using a 386 as a router and firewall, which it is perfectly capable
> >of hardwarewise
>
> Is that really the case?
>
> a) Is anybody actually doing this, today?
In our company, we are using
* Two 386sx 16 MHz with 8 MB
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
