Eric Blake wrote: > According to Ralph Hempel on 1/18/2009 4:44 PM: >> Charles Wilson wrote: >> >>> Doesn't cygwin officially support i386, or are we allowed to assume i586 >>> and above, now? >> Considering that support for Win98 is going to be dropped, the >> question may be answered if Win2K or better will even run on >> a 386 or 486? :-) > > In which case, shouldn't the gcc defaults be bumped to require this by > default?
According to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297 the minimum is i586 (Pentium 1). So yes, we should change the gcc defaults. I'll fix my local patchset and try to remember to post a patch upstream as well. cheers, DaveK
