As far as I know there is no way to prevent it from making shit when you send diffs through it's web client.
But anyway, I didn't searched enough, I just got tired and take the dust off my nail(1) (Heirloom mailx). On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Amit Kulkarni <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <[email protected]> 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 B B B B 1 Nov 2010 22:06:58 -0000 B B B 1.228 >>> +++ amd64.html B B B B 28 Jan 2011 19:55:09 -0000 >>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >>> B <hr> >>> >>> B <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. B After your change, I start thinking you have >> itemized everything that works...and thus, my Sempron won't work. B I >> lose, my Sempron works fine, thank you very much. B And here's where it >> gets ugly...not all the Semprons do. >> * Athlon Neo? Turion? B Athlon X2, X3, X4...? Phenom? >> >> And what have we gained by enlarging the list? B nothing. >> >>> B It also runs on processors made by other manufacturers which have cloned >>> B the AMD64 extensions. B (Some Intel processors lack support for important >>> B PAE NX bit, which means those machines will run without any W^X support > -- >>> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ >>> B <p> >>> B The only major shortcoming at this time is that the kernel debugger >>> B <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. >> >>> B <hr> >>> B <a name="hardware"></a> >>> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ >>> >>> B <p> >>> B 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! >> B The name predates the 64 bit instruction set) specific statement. B 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. B It's >> all covered under "clone" quite nicely and to my satisfaction. B 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. B We are, actually, trying to cut down the itemized lists of >> devices supported, not add to them. B It isn't about having the longest >> list, it is about having the most useful list. >> >>> B <h4>SMP support</h4> >>> B Starting with OpenBSD 3.6, OpenBSD/amd64 supports most SMP >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Amit Kulkarni <[email protected]> > 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. B It's read by the people that need to read it. >> B However, your mailer is mangling diffs still (line wraps, two leading >> spaces where there should be one, etc.). B Mail the diff to yourself, see >> if you can apply it. >> >> Nick.
