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. -- Ben Hutchings Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class. - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette'
Description: This is a digitally signed message part