Hi!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:08:06 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 AM Ben Kohler wrote:
> >
> > 1) Adjust x86 profile defaults to drop the problematic -march=i686.
> > This would be more in line with amd64 profiles (et al), which set no
> > -march value so it can run on any
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:13:42 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think an exp arch is also overkill. How many packages simply can't
> be built for i486? I think a profile+masking makes a lot more sense
> than an entire new level of QA that touches every ebuild in the tree
> because there might be a f
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
> > Ben Kohler wrote:
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this?
> >
> > Or perhaps, a new (exp)
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this?
>
> Or perhaps, a new (exp) arch entirely dedicated to legacy x86?
Sounds like a lot of work for some
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
Ben Kohler wrote:
> Thoughts?
Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this?
Or perhaps, a new (exp) arch entirely dedicated to legacy x86?
The latter would be ideal for ensuring everything we *claim* works on
i486 does indeed work there, and
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:27 PM R0b0t1 wrote:
>
> Even newer embedded i586 and i686 hardware isn't cost effective
> considering power consumption. When considering power it often does
> not even make sense to run donated hardware ~5 years old.
>
I was referring to running the x86 arch on hardware
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:08 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 1. Museum hardware. People have systems that are running simply
> BECAUSE they are old, not because they are cost-effective/etc. I'm
> not sure I'd even lump used hardware into this category any longer, as
> I'm sure there are plenty of i68
On 08/22/2018 08:26 AM, Ben Kohler wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> For some time now, we've been shipping broken i486 stage3s that do not
> run on pre-i686 hardware [1]. Due to a change in catalyst [2], we no
> longer set CXXFLAGS in the default make.conf, so the x86 profiles' (imho
> wrong/broken) default
On 22/08/18 20:20, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:26 AM Ben Kohler wrote:
>> 2) Patch catalyst to start setting CXXFLAGS again. Rather than roll
>> back to exactly CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" again, it's been suggested that we
>> start setting COMMON_FLAGS, and CFLAGS="${COMMON_FLAGS}"
>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:26 AM Ben Kohler wrote:
> 2) Patch catalyst to start setting CXXFLAGS again. Rather than roll
> back to exactly CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" again, it's been suggested that we
> start setting COMMON_FLAGS, and CFLAGS="${COMMON_FLAGS}"
> CXXFLAGS=${COMMON_FLAGS}" etc. I prepared
On 2018-08-22 16:30, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> So +1 from me on removing -march=i686 from the x86 arch profile.
+1
--
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 AM Ben Kohler wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> For some time now, we've been shipping broken i486 stage3s that do not
> run on pre-i686 hardware [1]. Due to a change in catalyst [2], we no
> longer set CXXFLAGS in the default make.conf, so the x86 profiles' (imho
> wrong/broke
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Is there a large population that actually runs x86 on modern
> hardware, or is ancient hardware a significant use case?
There are current products with pre-686 instruction sets.
Companies such as DM&P still produce 586-class SoCs for embedded and
industrial. These[1][2] are
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 22.08.2018 kell 09:08, kirjutas Rich Freeman:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 AM Ben Kohler
> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Adjust x86 profile defaults to drop the problematic -march=i686.
> > This would be more in line with amd64 profiles (et al), which set
> > no
> > -march value so it
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500
Ben Kohler wrote:
> For some time now, we've been shipping broken i486 stage3s that do
> not run on pre-i686 hardware [1]. Due to a change in catalyst [2],
> we no longer set CXXFLAGS in the default make.conf, so the x86
> profiles' (imho wrong/broken) defaults
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 AM Ben Kohler wrote:
>
> 1) Adjust x86 profile defaults to drop the problematic -march=i686.
> This would be more in line with amd64 profiles (et al), which set no
> -march value so it can run on any hardware for this arch.
>
My knee-jerk reaction was that this is a b
Hi guys,
For some time now, we've been shipping broken i486 stage3s that do not
run on pre-i686 hardware [1]. Due to a change in catalyst [2], we no
longer set CXXFLAGS in the default make.conf, so the x86 profiles' (imho
wrong/broken) defaults [3] kick in.
I'd like to get this fixed, and I
17 matches
Mail list logo
