Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports
At Thu, 7 Aug 2003 07:33:09 +0200,
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> [1 <text/plain; iso-8859-1 (quoted-printable)>]
> On Wed, 2003-08-06 17:22:19 -0400, Ben Collins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> wrote in message <20030806212219.GF15978@phunnypharm.org>:
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Jan-Benedict Glaw writes:
> > Someone is making statements without knowing the real situation.
> > Changing to hwmul ops in libc and other key libraries makes a _huge_
> > difference. Just for libssl alone it makes an UltraSPARC sshd server go
> > from 5 seconds for a login, to almost instant.
> But if you start using that libssl on a hwmul-less system, it'll get
> even worse there, won't it? So the slow ones get slower and the fast
> ones get faster.
> > This decision for sparc wasn't made just for the fuck of it. It actually
> > has a purpose. You call it broken, I call it "older hardware is no
> > longer supported in order to benefit newer machines". Sooner or later
> Thanks for that statement. I think this one is _really_ honest and
> describes the situation - more-or-less even for i386.
So how to act for two bugs?:
#203322: python2.2: Python fails with illegal instruction during postinst on sparc32
#203324: libc6: __strtod_internal fails with illegal instruction on sparc32.
Keeping them as "Critical" is not acceptable for me, if you guys don't
provide any usable information, I simply close or downgrade.