On Wed, 2003-07-30 20:10:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
wrote in message <20030730181006.GB21734@fs.tum.de>:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 03:56:23PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >...
> > Please apply. Worst to say, even Debian seems to start using i486+
> > features (ie. libstdc++5 is SIGILLed on Am386 because there's no
> > "lock" insn available)...
>
> Shouldn't the 486 emulation in the latest 386 kernel images in Debian
> unstable take care of this?
Specifically patched kernel? Sounds lame to me...
Generic solution would be to have a generic implementation, IMHO.
Up to now, I've nowhere found some hard facts that the new opcodes do
measureable speed up things. Sure, saving some hundreds/thousands/...
CPU cycles is nice - but not, if that's only 0.1% of the whole number of
CPU cycles burned in a run. That doesn't, IMHO, really legitimate do
unsupport the i386.
MfG, JBG
-- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:47 EST