Ok I got it. I admit I didn't think of Semprons or Athlon Neo as 64 bit capable but some are :)
I will post to www@ after this. Sorry about my mail. I thought gmail would be better. I have set it to text encoding. I will definitely try and fix this. On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Nick Holland <n...@holland-consulting.net> wrote: > On 01/28/11 14:57, Amit Kulkarni wrote: >> Updated diff based on private Atom feedback and bigmem feedback. > > In short, no. > In long: well, see notes within. > >> Index: amd64.html >> =================================================================== >> RCS file: /cvs/www/amd64.html,v >> retrieving revision 1.228 >> diff -u -r1.228 amd64.html >> --- amd64.html 1 Nov 2010 22:06:58 -0000 1.228 >> +++ amd64.html 28 Jan 2011 19:55:09 -0000 >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >> <hr> >> >> <p> >> -OpenBSD/amd64 runs on AMD's Athlon-64 family of processors in 64-bit mode. >> +OpenBSD/amd64 runs on AMD's Opteron-64/Athlon-64 family of processors >> in 64-bit mode. > > I think this is already quite correct, if we consider the Opteron part > of the Athlon64 family. > > IF you are going to get really picky about this, you need to do your > homework, as I'll pick you back. > * It's Opteron, not Opteron-64. > * If I read it as it is, I think there's a strong possibility my 64 bit > happy Sempron might run. After your change, I start thinking you have > itemized everything that works...and thus, my Sempron won't work. I > lose, my Sempron works fine, thank you very much. And here's where it > gets ugly...not all the Semprons do. > * Athlon Neo? Turion? Athlon X2, X3, X4...? Phenom? > > And what have we gained by enlarging the list? nothing. > >> It also runs on processors made by other manufacturers which have cloned >> the AMD64 extensions. (Some Intel processors lack support for important >> PAE NX bit, which means those machines will run without any W^X support -- >> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ >> <p> >> The only major shortcoming at this time is that the kernel debugger >> <a >> href="http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ddb&arch=amd64&sek >> tion=4">ddb</a> >> -is somewhat poor. >> +is somewhat poor. There is no support yet for memory greater than 4 GB. > > this probably does need a note somewhere, but I think it can be done > better. > >> <hr> >> <a name="hardware"></a> >> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ >> >> <p> >> All versions of the AMD Athlon 64 processors and their clones are >> -supported. >> +supported. This includes AMD Opteron, AMD Phenom, AMD Athlon, Intel >> Nehalem (Core i3, i5, and i7), and 64 bit Intel Atom. > > again, you take a broad general statement which is accurate and turn it > into an incomplete (and wrong -- many Athlons are NOT amd64 compatable! > The name predates the 64 bit instruction set) specific statement. I'm > not even gonna start listing the Intel systems you skipped over there, > and a very high percentage of the Intel Atom chips in consumer hands > (and I believe some still being sold) are NOT AMD64 compatible. It's > all covered under "clone" quite nicely and to my satisfaction. A lot of > the early Intel AMD64-compatible chips screwed up their AMD64 > compatibility to the point where you basically just have to try it and > see if YOUR chip works. > > It is not practical to enumerate every marketing name for every chip out > there (I see an attempt was made on the i386 page, though that should be > a legacy platform now and thus easier, but good ol' Intel is still > making new i386-only chips (or at least was, as of the first generations > of Atom...*sigh*). > > There's also just no point, and a lot more future maintenance for this > page. We are, actually, trying to cut down the itemized lists of > devices supported, not add to them. It isn't about having the longest > list, it is about having the most useful list. > >> <h4>SMP support</h4> >> Starting with OpenBSD 3.6, OpenBSD/amd64 supports most SMP >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Amit Kulkarni <amitk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi misc, >>> >>> I don't know where to post www updates. www seems to be heavily >>> spammed and nobody uses it. And I don't want to spam specific people. > > www@ is the right place. It's read by the people that need to read it. > However, your mailer is mangling diffs still (line wraps, two leading > spaces where there should be one, etc.). Mail the diff to yourself, see > if you can apply it. > > Nick.
