<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Any opinions/counter-opinions on which processors we should support?<BR>
Presumably it doesn't vary per platform.<BR>
Like, it wouldn't be Linux/586 and FreeBSD/486 or such.<BR>
Unless maybe there is clear data about what the kernels support?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The atomic stuff is pushing things to i586.<BR>I believe before 486 and possibly 386 worked.<BR>
686 is probably reasonable.<BR>
I think it is Pentium II or Pentium Pro or newer, stuff like 15 years old already.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We might even drop "x87" support and use SSE/SSE2/SSE3?<BR>
(Trolling for work in m3back? :) )<BR>
Or make it a different set of platforms?<BR>
I686_LINUX?<BR>
I686SSE2_LINUX?<BR>
etc.?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But I don't like such combinatorial work -- supporting more combinations.<BR>
Maybe, uh, drop all existing 32bit platforms and go with I686_*??<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
"Darwin" can pretty much imply modern processors.<BR>
Assuming Apple hardware...granted, I had Darwin/x86 on non-Apple hardware.<BR>
<BR>
None of this makes a huge difference.<BR>
I mean, in that, there's almost no changes that follow from these decisions.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- Jay<BR><BR> </body>
</html>