X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4BA5CDFD.1030301@slittle.com>
References:	<4BA452E4 DOT 7050600 AT slittle DOT com> <4BA4E1B2 DOT 3020507 AT gmail DOT com> <4BA54492 DOT 8050903 AT slittle DOT com> <416096c61003202058s40c2f423p2fff76df652981f5 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4BA5AAA3 DOT 5060606 AT slittle DOT com> <416096c61003202345j5a412a62s48b61292a9192f21 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4BA5CDFD DOT 1030301 AT slittle DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:14:00 +0000
Message-ID:	<416096c61003210514k57ed009dra7fa3b3e2e9a218f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: Cygwin vs Via C3: nothing happens, no output
From:	Andy Koppe <andy DOT koppe AT gmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Scott Little:
>> Where do you get that idea from that CMOV is optional? Yes, there's a
>> CPUID feature bit representing CMOV, but that's always set on the
>> i686, its descendants, and compatible processors. Pre-Nehemiah C3s are
>> not fully 686-compatible, simple as that.
>
> Old flamewars, eg.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-gcc AT lists DOT debian DOT org/msg04643.html

Right. So what's the point of trying to reheat those? The GCC
developers didn't change the definition of i686 to "Pentium Pro minus
the features missing from Via's mislabelled 586" back then, so they
sure won't do that now.

The only vaguely interesting argument to be had here is whether Cygwin
1.7 should still be built for i586.


>> Maybe so, but you can't then go out and demand that everyone else
>> doesn't use those features.
>
> True, but I can tell the noisier advocates claiming open source can save
> my old hardware to STFU ;)

I'm always glad to see a nice big straw man knocked down with such convicti=
on.

Different projects obviously make different decisions about what
hardware to support. For 586 support, try Cygwin 1.5. Or ditch Windows
and use Debian instead. Or, just to make sure we've got the big
clich=C3=A9s covered, compile 1.7 yourself.

Andy

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -