On Friday 25 April 2003 08:06 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 25 April 2003 15:43, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 01:37:04PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > > Hmm... I'd argue for putting the split at either 386 vs 486+ (the > > > latter at least has a math copro and CMPXCHG), or at 386-pentium vs > > > 686+. > > > > See the beginning of this thread; the problem is that libstdc++ has drawn > > a line between 386 and 486. > > No, the only thing that is enforced is that i386 systems cannot use the > i486+ ABI. It is a very possible solution to have use the i386 ABI on any > system and the i486+ ABI only on i686+. > > That will however mean that third party software using libstdc++5 with the > i486 ABI won't work will not work on systems with an instruction set older > than i686. It's a compromise, but I think it's still better than forcing > everyone on the i486 compatibility that is just as obsolete as i386 (i.e. > you won't buy any _new_ i486 machines in order to run Debian).
I beg to differ. I've purchased a pair of embedded 486/133 machines for use as communication computers running Debian, just in the last couple months. Many others are doing the same with older laptops and even desktops. I would see it as a great shame to lose this support. > If we really want to split i386 in 'compatible' and 'fast', the i686 border > makes sense because users who care about speed probably bought the machine > during the last two years and those should be i686 compatible. Not everyone buys brand new whiz-bang machines. I do not think we should create arbitrary boundaries - this thread began with a boundary that was enforced by code, not just a perception of which machines are newer or faster or more readily available. - Keegan
