On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 06:58:08AM +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 08:06:28PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 3:37 AM Jeroen Massar <jer...@massar.ch> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > I personally would not touch the .h definitions: > > > > > > > > > > > Index: i386/include/cputypes.h > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > -#define CPUCLASS_386 0 > > > > #define CPUCLASS_486 1 > [...] > > > Though, one could argue for the include users that they should also be > > > stripping their code of this use and super special casing... > > > > How much of a real problem is this? These defines are ONLY available > > on the i386 platform. > > > > Wouldn't you have to be doing something super unportable to begin with > > if you're using these defines for anything? > > OTOH, if someone would want to do something super unportable, would > you tell them to use some other operating system? > > I guess it is ok to drop supporting code but... > > I think it would be prudent to keep those few old defines, just mark > them with relevant comment saying they are no longer being used and > only kept to prevent someone clever from redefining those values for > whatever clever purpose they will see in a future.
the numbers are not significant > > I believe it is still possible to buy 386 in a form of so called > industrial computer. Their life is expected to be decades > long. Someone out there might be supporting this old stuff while > making sure his code compiles on newer hardware, too. While not having > the defines in *.h should be ok, it does not really cost much to keep > them. 386 isn't supported. This patch is some minor cleanup and doesn't change that.
