| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. |
| 3 |
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks |
| 4 |
> of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could |
| 5 |
> try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting |
| 6 |
> below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks |
| 7 |
> that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't |
| 8 |
> believe it's worth it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There are CPUs like VIA C3 which don't have support for cmov and |
| 11 |
i think gcc asumes that cmov is present if march is i686. Don't |
| 12 |
know if this changed now. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I wouldn't like if i couldn't install Gentoo on my 800Mhz C3 |
| 15 |
machines anymore because something like -march=i686 is being used. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Maybe it's a radical point of view but i think generic i386 or |
| 18 |
maybe i486 binaries are enough for a boot CD and stages. Almost |
| 19 |
everyone will rebuild the stuff anyway. And i don't think there's |
| 20 |
a huge speed loss until the binaries are rebuilt. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Christian |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives