On Thu, 2003-07-31 02:22:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
wrote in message <20030731002230.GE22991@fs.tum.de>:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:33:18PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >...
> > That sounds a tad inelegant to me. Really, I'd prefer to see libstdc++
> > be compiled for i386 ...
> >
> > ...and IFF those new opcodes bring _that_ much performance, then we
> > should think about another Debian distribution for i686-linux. Up to
> > now, I was really proud of having _one_ distribution that's basically
> > capable of running on all and any machines I own...
>
> The 486 emlation patch for 386 is the way to still allow 386's to run
> Debian.
Okay, I'll have a look at it. Where's the 2.6.x version?
> To compile libstdc++ for 486 wasn't a performance question - a
> libstdc++.so.5 compiled for 386 would have meant that C++ binaries
> compiled on Debian wouldn't run on other Linux distributions and vice
> versa [1] (it's a bug in libstdc++ that will AFAIR be fixed in gcc 3.4).
I've got no idea when this version will come up. What's the (Debian)
timeline for a gcc-3.4 based libstdc++ then? I've already tried
gcc-snapshot's libstdc++, but that's libstdc++6, which won't link with
todays applications...
Well, it's not only that. Seen the thread named like "Time loss on
i486"? That'll be some fun, too:)
Itching my head, 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 - 22:00:48 EST