[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What architecture are we?

david@elo.sw.ods.com (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 i[34]86 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.

* Optimization.

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
quinlan@pathname.com            quinlan@transmeta.com (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

Reply to: