Re: i386 compatibility & libstdc++
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 CMPXCHG), or at 386-pentium vs
> > > 686+.
> >
> > 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 use the
> i486+ ABI. It is a very possible solution to have use the i386 ABI on any
> system and the i486+ ABI only on i686+.
>
> That will however mean that third party software using libstdc++5 with the
> i486 ABI won't work will not work on systems with an instruction set older
> than i686. 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 beg to differ. I've purchased a pair of embedded 486/133 machines for use
as communication computers running Debian, just in the last couple months.
Many others are doing the same with older laptops and even desktops. I would
see it as a great shame to lose this support.
> 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.
Not everyone buys brand new whiz-bang machines. I do not think we should
create arbitrary boundaries - this thread began with a boundary that was
enforced by code, not just a perception of which machines are newer or faster
or more readily available.
- Keegan
Reply to: