More wrong? Maybe so. My point was that both are and either way it's inconsistent.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Nick Holland <[email protected]>wrote: > On 07/01/2013 09:27 AM, noah pugsley wrote: > ... > > At first I thought this was a wonderful troll. Guy's got a point though. >> Look at the i386 page. >> >> >> http://www.openbsd.org/i386.**html <http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html>: >> >> Supported hardware: >> >> The list of supported hardware is relevant to OpenBSD-current. It will >> differ slightly from the support provided in the latest release version. >> Processors >> >> All CPU chips compatible with the Intel 80386 (i386) architecture, except >> for the 80386 itself, are supported: >> >> 80486 (DX/DX2/DX4) >> > ...[snip painful, incomplete list]... > > Transmeta TM3200, TM5400, TM5600, TM5800 >> >> Regular floating-point coprocessors (80487SX) are required when not built >> into the processor. >> > > really, I think that's more wrong. Trying to itemize the list when > various manufacturers are constantly cranking out new and reusing old names > is misleading in the other direction. I think it could be reduced to just: > > > Everything that is a clone of the 486 or up should work fine. >> > > maybe adding a blurb about how a standard hardware FPU is required, as > someone out there might still have some 486SX systems laying around. > > This is easier than amd64... just about everything works, and if it > doesn't, it is not likely a processor issue. amd64...well, some of the > Intel chips, you just need (or it is easier) to test to find out if you got > the right bit of magic. > > Nick.
