On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
Martin Langhoff (martin.langh...@gmail.com) said:
To note: it _is_ reported as a 586, so at least ancillary work in
yum/anaconda/rpm will be needed so that installing F12 on these
supported but not quite 686 CPUs is
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Atom systems are frequently battery powered, so improvements there can
also to increased battery life. P4, OTOH, already requires a locally
installed atomic power plant so energy isn't an issue there.
There were actually some P4
There were actually some P4 laptops. They tended to be very large (to
contain the required power and cooling) and have a battery life measured
in minutes. They probably should also have come with heavy-duty lap heat
protectors...
I had a HP xe4500, with a P4M-1.6ghz, and its battery lasted 3
2009/6/25 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
There were actually some P4 laptops. They tended to be very large (to
contain the required power and cooling) and have a battery life measured
in minutes. They probably should also have come with heavy-duty lap heat
protectors...
I doubt anyone
- Optimize for Atom
I also don't get this one. Why not optimize for the cpu architectur in
use by most fedora-x86 users, like p4 or c2d?
It seems crazy to optimize for a cpu with maybe 5% market share, just
because its the only x86 cpu left. (by the way, the via C7 is still
sold too).
- Clemens
Clemens Eisserer (linuxhi...@gmail.com) said:
- Optimize for Atom
I also don't get this one. Why not optimize for the cpu architectur in
use by most fedora-x86 users, like p4 or c2d?
It seems crazy to optimize for a cpu with maybe 5% market share, just
because its the only x86 cpu left.
1) Optimizing for P4 is ... messy
2) If you're using C2D, etc., you can already use the 64-bit distro.
So why not stay with generic, where most users would benefit.
Sure I could use 64-bit, as could all the others using 32-bit on
64-bit capable CPUs (I guess 50% of all fedora-x86 users).
-
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Clemens Eissererlinuxhi...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Optimizing for P4 is ... messy
2) If you're using C2D, etc., you can already use the 64-bit distro.
So why not stay with generic, where most users would benefit.
Sure I could use 64-bit, as could all the others
+1 For the i686 with atom optimizations. This seems like a solid suggestion
and Gregory's argument seems logical.
-Adam
(From my G1)
On Jun 23, 2009 11:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Clemens Eissererlinuxhi...@gmail.com
wrote: 1) Optimizing
Glen Turner (g...@gdt.id.au) said:
On 19/06/09 00:19, Bill Nottingham wrote:
No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
testing it on i586-class hardware.
Hi Bill,
Your wiki page has some jargon (i586) which I'm trying
to reduce to manufacturer products, as you
No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
testing it on i586-class hardware.
Hi Bill,
Your wiki page has some jargon (i586) which I'm trying
to reduce to manufacturer products, as you have already
done for the AMD products.
F12 x86 will not work on i586 (or
Why can't you just leave it as-is?
I mean is 1% improvement (for cpu intensive workload) really worth
changing anything?
Instead of messing arround with stuff like that, I guess a lot of code
would benefit of beeing build with profile driven optimizations, which
often yields a 5-15% improvement
Clemens Eisserer linuxhi...@gmail.com writes:
I mean is 1% improvement (for cpu intensive workload) really worth
changing anything?
No, especially if it screws somebody (not me though).
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:24:35PM +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
F12 x86 will not work on i586 (or i686 without CMOV)
Intel Pentium
Intel Pentium Pro
VIA Cyrix III
VIA C3 and C3-M (Samuel 2)
VIA C3 and C3-M (Ezra)
VIA C3 and C3-M
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Glen Turnerg...@gdt.id.au wrote:
On 19/06/09 00:19, Bill Nottingham wrote:
No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
testing it on i586-class hardware.
Hi Bill,
Your wiki page has some jargon (i586) which I'm trying
to reduce to
On 18/06/09 11:03, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Its all a matter of how you look at it. If it turns out that a lot of
64bit hardware owners are running 32bit Fedora 11...
It would be useful if anaconda displayed a info box telling people when
they were considering installing 32b Linux on systems with
On 06/17/2009 12:17 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
I'm thinking specifically with people with Centrino stickered
laptops of unclear vintage who may not realize that they have a 64bit
capable machine even when they do. The
On 06/17/09 21:17, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
- Atom is the only currently produced 32-bit x86 chip of note; optimize
for what's currently available
Just as an aside, can we do anything to help people identify whether
their
- We don't really support i586 in any meaningful matter
What does this mean? Does Fedora not run on i586? Why was there a
mass-rebuild for i586 if it doesn't work?
I know of *no one* in the community who tests on i586 to ensure that it
works. (If this drags them out of silence, so be
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 06:14:33PM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
That's not true; Geode has cmov, and should be compatible with
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
That's not true; Geode has cmov, and should be compatible with gcc's i686.
It does work - I have CentOS 5.3 installed currently
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Jeff Spaletajspal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM, James Hubbardjameshubb...@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to berate people into using x86_64 as I've seen in this and
other threads has gotten annoying.
Berate? I'm not trying to berate anyone.
Gerd Hoffmann (kra...@redhat.com) said:
On 06/17/09 19:52, Bill Nottingham wrote:
P4 2.4Ghz Athlon 3400+Core2Duo E6850 Atom N270
march=i686/ -1.1% +2.0% +0.9% +0.6%
mtune=generic
march=i586/ +0.3% -0.3% -0.2%
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
I know of *no one* in the community who tests on i586 to ensure that it
works. (If this drags them out of silence, so be it!) It is certainly not
part of the QA matrix for testing RCs. On the kernel side, I doubt the
kernel
team even has
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
*That's* what I mean by we don't really support i586 in any meaningful
manner.
You seem to be speaking in terms of You == RH.
No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
testing it on i586-class hardware.
Bill
--
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
I know of *no one* in the community who tests on i586 to ensure that it
works. (If this drags them out of silence, so be it!) It is certainly not
part of the QA matrix for
Martin Langhoff (martin.langh...@gmail.com) said:
To note: it _is_ reported as a 586, so at least ancillary work in
yum/anaconda/rpm will be needed so that installing F12 on these
supported but not quite 686 CPUs is possible, avoiding the hackery
of installing it on a true 686 and then
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
+arch_compat: geode: i686
...
That should do the trick. :)
Cool. Didn't know we had that compat mechanism available.
Back to my humid cave then...
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org -- School Server
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
*That's* what I mean by we don't really support i586 in any meaningful
manner.
You seem to be speaking in terms of You == RH.
No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
testing it on i586-class
Given the loud feedback, I've updated the proposal at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support
The revised proposal:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
- Optimize for Atom
Why?
- We don't really support i586 in any meaningful matter
- OLPC still works with
On 06/17/2009 07:52 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Given the loud feedback, I've updated the proposal at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support
The revised proposal:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
- Optimize for Atom
Why?
- We don't really support i586
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com said:
Why?
- We don't really support i586 in any meaningful matter
What does this mean? Does Fedora not run on i586? Why was there a
mass-rebuild for i586 if it doesn't work?
- We are likely doing a mass rebuild for F-12 anyways, might
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
Consider:
-Os on the x86 build?
Back when I tested before, -Os unilaterally made things worse across
Athlon64/C2D/Atom.
Bill
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 02:41:54PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
Consider:
-Os on the x86 build?
Back when I tested before, -Os unilaterally made things worse across
Athlon64/C2D/Atom.
Note that GCC 4.4 switches -Os on for unlikely executed
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Jakub Jelinekja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 02:41:54PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
Consider:
-Os on the x86 build?
Back when I tested before, -Os unilaterally made things worse across
Once upon a time, drago01 drag...@gmail.com said:
Is this (bloated code) really a problem if the code runs faster?
Bloated code:
== more disk space (not too critical except for LiveCD type setup)
== more RAM usage (most have lots of RAM so not too bad)
== more cache misses (slows down code
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:56:58PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Note that GCC 4.4 switches -Os on for unlikely executed basic blocks and/or
unlikely executed functions (of course profile feedback helps here a lot,
but even without it the heuristics gets it right in many cases), so forcing
-Os for
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Jakub Jelinekja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:56:58PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Note that GCC 4.4 switches -Os on for unlikely executed basic blocks and/or
unlikely executed functions (of course profile feedback helps here a lot,
but even
Hi,
The revised proposal:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
- Optimize for Atom
This sounds good to me/OLPC. Thanks!
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball c...@laptop.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
Given the loud feedback, I've updated the proposal at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support
The revised proposal:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
- Optimize for Atom
Sounds
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
- Atom is the only currently produced 32-bit x86 chip of note; optimize
for what's currently available
Just as an aside, can we do anything to help people identify whether
their hardware is 64bit capable?
I'm thinking
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
and for what ...
P4 2.4Ghz Athlon 3400+Core2Duo E6850 Atom N270
march=i686/ -1.1% +2.0% +0.9%
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote:
This just doesn't look worthwhile at all.
My proposal is that we actually start to 'downgrade' x86, start
compiling for baseline i386, and try to support people running Fedora
on really old hardware, through projects
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
That's not true; Geode has cmov, and should be compatible with gcc's i686.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball c...@laptop.org
--
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com writes:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
No, though it cuts out VIA C3 (used mostly(?) on EPIA (mini-ITX)
boards). I have one but it had never run Fedora (only PXE ramdisk-based
small LFS).
Hmm... Just checked
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
That's not true; Geode has cmov, and should be compatible with gcc's i686.
Agreed, I've run i686 kernel/openssl on a geode based
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Well, we need to start by actually telling people a 64-bit version exists in
the first place! The crappy download page needs to be fixed! We should go
back to something like get-fedora-all, the
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 14:58 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Can smolt tell give me an
indication of the percentage of 64bit capable systems which are
running 32bit Fedora? Hmm.
Question is, how reliable would smolt be, if you don't know how many
more are *not* reporting to smolt anyway, via not
Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) said:
- We don't really support i586 in any meaningful matter
What does this mean? Does Fedora not run on i586? Why was there a
mass-rebuild for i586 if it doesn't work?
I know of *no one* in the community who tests on i586 to ensure that it
works. (If
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com said:
Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) said:
How does this affect multilib on x86_64?
It doesn't.
What I meant was what was the impact on running 32 bit binaries on the
64 bit OS (e.g. run your benchmarks there as well).
--
Chris Adams
Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) said:
How does this affect multilib on x86_64?
It doesn't.
What I meant was what was the impact on running 32 bit binaries on the
64 bit OS (e.g. run your benchmarks there as well).
Unless I've completely missed something (always a possiblity), 32-bit
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 14:58 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Can smolt tell give me an
indication of the percentage of 64bit capable systems which are
running 32bit Fedora? Hmm.
Question is, how reliable would smolt be, if you don't know how many
Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
Can smolt tell give me an
indication of the percentage of 64bit capable systems which are
running 32bit Fedora? Hmm.
Question is, how reliable would smolt be, if you don't know how many
more are *not* reporting to smolt anyway, via not on
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 23:00:38 +0100,
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
My proposal is that we actually start to 'downgrade' x86, start
compiling for baseline i386, and try to support people running Fedora
on really old hardware, through projects like the Minimal Platform
On 06/17/2009 08:10 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
See the Fedora Foundations [1] and Objectives [2] page. If we're truly
about being on the leading edge, being innovative, etc., the main target
of Fedora should be current hardware, even if older hardware is still
supported. The only *current*
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Mike Chambersm...@miketc.net wrote:
Question is, how reliable would smolt be, if you don't know how many
more are *not* reporting to smolt anyway, via not on internet but on
just a local network?
I'll take it with a grain of salt...but I've no a priori reason
On 06/17/2009 03:00 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
and for what ...
P4 2.4Ghz Athlon 3400+Core2Duo E6850 Atom N270
On Wednesday 17 June 2009 05:00:38 pm Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
This cuts out AMD Geode ...
and for what ...
P4 2.4Ghz Athlon 3400+Core2Duo E6850
On 06/17/2009 11:10 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- We are likely doing a mass rebuild for F-12 anyways, might as well switch
while we're doing it
That's a pretty poor justification.
The common complaint leveled about doing it was why go to the extra effort.
If we're doing a mass rebuild,
59 matches
Mail list logo
