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

Re: Increasing minimum 'i386' processor

On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 23:44 +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
> On 20/11/2011 20:36, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If that is so, we should instead think forward to 686-class
> > with CMOV as a minimum for wheezy + 1.  Use of CMOV instructions is an
> > important optimisation and they *are* generated directly by compilers.
> While i might agree with the exclusion of 486 cpu classes (somewhere i 
> have a Winchip C6 200 MHz but i consider it unusable except for very 
> limited tasks), i think that excluding 586 could be too aggressive. AMD 
> K6-2 processors doesn't have CMOV, because when i try to use various 
> rescue CD on some of these machine, they don't boot with a messages 
> informing of the missing instruction. These processors are about 15 
> years old but are still useful and usable today and maybe still for 
> Wheezy+1.
> I think that would be a pity if Debian will not provide anymore a kernel 
> for this old cpus.

Maybe you think it's a waste to replace old PCs, but in many cases it's
a waste of money to keep them running.  Electricity isn't getting any
cheaper and modern systems are much better at power-saving.


Ben Hutchings
Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class.
                      - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette'

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: