Re: default CPU target for ix86 based ports
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw writes:
> > i386 seems to die, sun4m also does have servere problems... Where does
> > this lead to? All these seem to arise from doing optimization which
> > hasn't been proved to (really) make things better... Everything I see is
> > that it's breaking stuff.
>
> the ix86 change was for _compatibility_ reasons, not for
> _performance_.
>
> maybe Ben can commit on the sparc change.
"hasn't been proved to (really) make things better"
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.
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
the shit has to happen. Supporting sun4m-hwmul means we are still
supporting machines that are almost 20 years old. I'd say that's pretty
damn good.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
Reply to: