Re: What architecture are we?
firstname.lastname@example.org (David Engel) writes:
> I have always used i486-linux in my packages. However, with 586
> systems pretty much being the standard these days, we should
> probably standardize on i586-linux, except in those cases where the
> resulting package would not run at all on i86 systems. One such
> case would be the Linux kernel which uses some Pentium-only
> instructions when configured for i586.
There are two different issues here.
* The <arch> component in pathnames.
As long as the code still runs on an i386, this should remain `i386'
or `i386-linux'. More generally, the oldest architecture that works.
It doesn't make much sense to optimize code for i386 when relatively
few people run i386 machines. I'd suspect the most common
architecture is i586 now. In addition, i486-optimized binaries
produced by gcc are somewhat bloated. So, it's probably best to
optimize for the i586 as long as it remains compatible with i386
Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org (at work)
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com