Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 05:24:26PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: The CPU in Raspberry Pi 1 does support some, but not all, new features the armhf arch requires. The Raspbian team wanted to get all speedups they can, and, as for example floating point tasks greatly benefit from armhf's calling convention -- instead of using fully compatible armel, Raspbian guys decided to use modified armhf. This led to massive confusion, breaking any external repositories compiled for baseline armhf. Likewise, you can rebuild current unstable with -march=i586, but it'll break whenever an user takes a binary package from regular Debian or any other repository not recompiled with -march=i586. Ah, thanks for the clarification. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:05:08AM -0500, Don Wright wrote: > Don Wright wrote: > >I believe the original comment was comparing the soon-to-be unsupported > >i586 arch to the RPi 1 and 2 which use a variant ARM processor that > > Correction: As Adam noted, only the RPi model 1, Zero and Compute Module > use the original ARM-based BCM2835 system-on-a-chip. The higher Pi2 and > Pi3 are reasonably compatible with armhf binaries. > True. I upgraded both a rpi2 and a rpi3 from raspbian to Devuan armhf. Not a single problem. HND KatolaZ -- [ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ] [ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ] [ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ] ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
Don Wright wrote: >I believe the original comment was comparing the soon-to-be unsupported >i586 arch to the RPi 1 and 2 which use a variant ARM processor that Correction: As Adam noted, only the RPi model 1, Zero and Compute Module use the original ARM-based BCM2835 system-on-a-chip. The higher Pi2 and Pi3 are reasonably compatible with armhf binaries. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
bcn...@gmail.com wrote: >On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:17:31AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: >>Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you pretty >>much exactly in Raspbian's position. >> >>The result will be one-way compatibility: your packages will run on any >>Debian-compatible system but importing from Debian or any other external >>repository will require a rebuild. > >Aww crud... What's this about Raspbian? I believe the original comment was comparing the soon-to-be unsupported i586 arch to the RPi 1 and 2 which use a variant ARM processor that falls halfway between the Debian armel and armhf distros. Thus Raspbian is not compatible with Debian binaries from either arch and must build and maintain their own packages - as would Devuan if i586 support were to continue. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
> > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:17:31AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:27:43AM -0500, Linux O'Beardly wrote: > >> Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you pretty > >> much exactly in Raspbian's position. > >> > >> The result will be one-way compatibility: your packages will run on any > >> Debian-compatible system but importing from Debian or any other external > >> repository will require a rebuild. > > Aren't Rasberry Pis configured with ARM procs? If so, would dropping i586 > support have any effect whatsoever on it? The CPU in Raspberry Pi 1 does support some, but not all, new features the armhf arch requires. The Raspbian team wanted to get all speedups they can, and, as for example floating point tasks greatly benefit from armhf's calling convention -- instead of using fully compatible armel, Raspbian guys decided to use modified armhf. This led to massive confusion, breaking any external repositories compiled for baseline armhf. Likewise, you can rebuild current unstable with -march=i586, but it'll break whenever an user takes a binary package from regular Debian or any other repository not recompiled with -march=i586. -- How to exploit the Bible for weight loss: Pr28:25: he that putteth his trust in the ʟᴏʀᴅ shall be made fat. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:27:43AM -0500, Linux O'Beardly wrote: > Aren't Rasberry Pis configured with ARM procs? If so, would dropping i586 > support have any effect whatsoever on it? No. An ARM is not a 586. It could be one of the debian platforms whose name starts with 'arm', of which there are several. armel? armhf? or something like that. I'm told some of the ARMs are supported by platforms that don't use the entire instruction set, thereby wasting performance, but at least they do work. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
Aren't Rasberry Pis configured with ARM procs? If so, would dropping i586 support have any effect whatsoever on it? Linux O'Beardly @LinuxOBeardly http://o.beard.ly linux.obear...@gmail.com On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:34 PM, wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:17:31AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > >> Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you pretty >> much exactly in Raspbian's position. >> >> The result will be one-way compatibility: your packages will run on any >> Debian-compatible system but importing from Debian or any other external >> repository will require a rebuild. >> > > Aww crud... What's this about Raspbian? > > I use a raspberry pi 3 as my general computer now, and it is currently a > "frankendebian" with packages from both Raspbian and Devuan in order to > eliminate systemd. (here's the current sources.list:) > >deb http://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian/ jessie main ui >deb http://archive.raspbian.org/raspbian/ jessie main contrib non-free > rpi >deb http://mirrordirector.raspbian.org/raspbian/ jessie main contrib > non-free rpi >deb http://packages.devuan.org/devuan jessie main contrib non-free >deb http://packages.devuan.org/merged jessie main contrib non-free > > Currently, everything runs fine (graphical, even!), but is there some > huge incompatibility that's going to bite me later? > > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > > ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:17:31AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you pretty much exactly in Raspbian's position. The result will be one-way compatibility: your packages will run on any Debian-compatible system but importing from Debian or any other external repository will require a rebuild. Aww crud... What's this about Raspbian? I use a raspberry pi 3 as my general computer now, and it is currently a "frankendebian" with packages from both Raspbian and Devuan in order to eliminate systemd. (here's the current sources.list:) deb http://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian/ jessie main ui deb http://archive.raspbian.org/raspbian/ jessie main contrib non-free rpi deb http://mirrordirector.raspbian.org/raspbian/ jessie main contrib non-free rpi deb http://packages.devuan.org/devuan jessie main contrib non-free deb http://packages.devuan.org/merged jessie main contrib non-free Currently, everything runs fine (graphical, even!), but is there some huge incompatibility that's going to bite me later? signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:04:32AM +, Noel Torres wrote: > > Vince Mulhollon escribió: > > >It'll hit the embedded world pretty hard. > > > >Today you can buy a brand new soekris box that only runs i586. Brand > >new off the shelf, today. My 6 or 7 year old one is running right now > > Very valid points. However, we need to pick our battles. At this > moment, we have very scarce manpower, and a prime objective: get rid > of systemd for Jessie (it being usable) and Ascii (completely). It isn't even likely to impact Jessie, since the problems are only now being introduced into sid. THe responses I see in the bug reports suggest to me that Debian will not consider fixing the problem, and is dropping 586 altogether. The question for us, when we start to get serious about ascii, is whether we consider this a reasonable approach for our users although some of whom seem to still have use for a 586, or whether is the same kind of attitude that leads to WONTFIX for numerous systemd problems. Of course we don't need any kind of decision ontil we get serious about ascii, but airing the issue beforehand might inform our decision when we finally do get around to it. -- hendrik > Adam > Borowski expressed it way better than I could: > > ==8<== > Adam Borowski escribió: > >Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you pretty > >much exactly in Raspbian's position. > > > >You'd need to: > >* reconfigure and rebuild kernel for -585 flavour > >* undo the not-yet-done merging of libc6-i686 > >* (no source changes) rebuild every package! > >* watch out for regressions The main thing I see is that we'd have to use the appropriate flags for gcc to generate 586 code instead of 686 code. But yes, it would involve rebuilding every package. -- hendrik > ==8<== > > After that (or even for Ascii), we can broaden our view of "user > freedom to choose" to other chosings, and i585 would be a good first > step, but at this moment I (humbly) think it is not worth (even > being very important). At this moment, I agree. > > >The root cause of the problem is the Debian/Ubuntu ecosystem is moving > >away from the "universal OS" mantra and toward being a GNOME > >bootloader for tablets and everything else can just go away. Thats > >the war... abandonment of entire industry sectors or weird init > >decisions are merely a small battle, the war is the move toward > >turning the OS into a GNOME bootloader for tablets. And we'd like to take over the "universal OS" mantle. When we have the resources. -- hendrik k ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
Vince Mulhollon escribió: It'll hit the embedded world pretty hard. Today you can buy a brand new soekris box that only runs i586. Brand new off the shelf, today. My 6 or 7 year old one is running right now Very valid points. However, we need to pick our battles. At this moment, we have very scarce manpower, and a prime objective: get rid of systemd for Jessie (it being usable) and Ascii (completely). Adam Borowski expressed it way better than I could: ==8<== Adam Borowski escribió: Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you pretty much exactly in Raspbian's position. You'd need to: * reconfigure and rebuild kernel for -585 flavour * undo the not-yet-done merging of libc6-i686 * (no source changes) rebuild every package! * watch out for regressions ==8<== After that (or even for Ascii), we can broaden our view of "user freedom to choose" to other chosings, and i585 would be a good first step, but at this moment I (humbly) think it is not worth (even being very important). The root cause of the problem is the Debian/Ubuntu ecosystem is moving away from the "universal OS" mantra and toward being a GNOME bootloader for tablets and everything else can just go away. Thats the war... abandonment of entire industry sectors or weird init decisions are merely a small battle, the war is the move toward turning the OS into a GNOME bootloader for tablets. Agreed Regards Noel er Envite binkqTvSgfsqt.bin Description: Clave PGP pública pgpfrBXyS_hEx.pgp Description: Firma digital PGP ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 06:22:17PM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote: > It'll hit the embedded world pretty hard. Sane embedded doesn't run x86. Heck, even m68k is better than x86 there... > Today you can buy a brand new soekris box that only runs i586. Brand > new off the shelf, today. My 6 or 7 year old one is running right now > as an asterisk server at home. Draws about 5 watts. Its not exactly > the newest piece of hardware they sell but its still available as an > embedded / embeddable device. It draws about twice the power of a > rasp-pi, a good solid one amp at 12 volts. > > Its kinda sad because two years ago there were threads on the soekris > boards about having to move from Ubuntu to Debian when i586 was > dropped by Ubuntu and now they'll have to move AGAIN just two years > later to ... something. Soekris uses Geode, which is 686 save for NOPL. There's no significant gain from NOPL, thus Debian is not planning dropping support for Geode at this time. There's an open issue that some stuff produces NOPL when configured for 686, but that's being dealt with (I don't know the exact details). > The root cause of the problem is the Debian/Ubuntu ecosystem is moving > away from the "universal OS" mantra Please take a look at second-class architectures: alpha hppa hurd-i386 kfreebsd-{amd64,i386} m68k mips64el powerpcspe ppc64 sh4 sparc64 x32. This is where stuff like 586 belongs. This bunch includes outgoing architectures that stopped being relevant at 586's time (m68k), at Pentium 4's time (alpha hppa), possibly incoming but lacking manpower (mips64el sparc64 x32), flip-flopping because of low manpower (kfreebsd), niche (ppc64 -- it has a newer mainstream version in first-class), something ancient but with 100% free hardware coming once patents expire (sh4) and a joke arch (hurd). All of these but powerpcspe are currently in mostly working order -- there are smaller or bigger problems but they generally work. An architecture with any users doesn't get dropped unless supporting it becomes hopeless (ia64). If you want arch/feature/etc X working... contribute! This includes not only coding but also pushing stuff upstream, for many meanings of "upstream": sometimes kernel, sometimes glibc, sometimes authors of a given piece of software, sometimes Debian. Carrying a patchset yourself is not a viable idea in the long run. For example, I'm one of porters of x32, which is currently on the list of second-class architectures. I'm fighting an uphill battle with some maintainers who claim that x32 is "useless"; this is why I recently got access to the NMU stick. I can't exactly NMU the kernel (vetoed in #778212) or d-i, but the kernel part requires "just" work, while persuading the d-i team is a matter of getting the rest of the port in a good enough shape. All of this is doable, as long as you contribute instead of talking. Of course, a single person can't possibly get all the needed parts done him- or herself. I'll let you a secret: I'm not a Devuan user, nor I really believe it will gain lots of popularity. So why am I on this mailing list? Because I hope that you'll produce by some means (whatever taking+integrating or coding from scratch) some parts that got broken by the systemd invasion (mainly policykit/upower/etc), so they can be upstreamed into Debian. When that is done, more ambitious projects like vdev would be nice, too. But you can't say I'm a freeloader: my nosystemd-jessie/stretch repository has working packages that you can use now. That's not a viable solution long-term as required diffs will grow beyond meager tuits I can put into their maintenance, though. That's why I need you to come with a replacement, be it consolekit2 or whatever else. Yet having someone like me waiting to "steal your hard work" is actually important for Devuan: if the shape of sane inits in Debian degenerates enough to let the systemd crowd drop them, the resultant droppage of support across 24509 source packages will be a disaster that'd be hard to recover with your current manpower. > the war is the move toward turning the OS into a GNOME bootloader for > tablets. GNOME doesn't even run on anything but i386 and amd64 (it compiles but fails on startup). Since gnome-fallback got dropped, it absolutely needs either certain OpenGL features (implemented only by nvidia/nouveau (not on arm* or ppc*), radeon and intel) or llvmpipe (i386 and amd64 only). GNOME folks will rush to claim that someone ported gnome-shell to freedreno, but that's only a hacked version of Fedora, as far as I know not upstreamed, and certainly not in Debian. I've repeatedly asked on debian-devel for reports of anyone who managed to get gnome-shell running on !i386 !amd64, not a single person stepped up. Thus, the presence of other architectures as release archs suggests there's more than just a "Gnome bootloader"... Meow! -- A tit a day keeps the vet away. ___ Dng mailing l
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 06:57:22PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > Not worth the effort, I'd say. Jessie still has four years of > > security support (I don't think Devuan has the manpower to provide > > security support for 40k+ packages alone after Debian ends it), and > > if you'd _still_ run that museal machine at that time, you can > > reconsider. > > We need to pick our battles. I bought a Pentium II, a 686, in 1998. > That's a little over 18 years ago. The last 32 bit Pentium, the Pentium > 4, stopped selling in August 2008: That's 8 years ago. Actually, roughly half of P4 models supported amd64. I don't know when i386-only ones stopped being produced, but I assume it was a good time before 2008. > And since 2004, you could, and many people did, buy 64 bit machines. A > 586 or 32 bit machine is doubtlessly so old that getting one replacement > part would cost quite enough to just dumpsterize the computer (unless one > has a basement full of cannibalizable computers). Actually, there's still a 32-bit P4 running at one of my customers. A samba file server -- not something you need a fat machine for. I do have a 64-bit P4 in my own cellar, doing backups. But these are P4, not 586. You can't even attach a non-ancient disk to the latter, so file serving purposes are out. A vast majority of uses that don't need a big disk are better served by a cheap-ass ARM SoC like RPi (if you want gigabit ethernet, most of RPi's competitors have it). Electricity cost difference will pay off that investment in a couple months... So, the only reason I can fathom for using a 586 is if you have some specialty hardware with an ancient connector, like an ISA card. But those invariably require software of matching age that's unlikely to run on a modern distribution. Thus, I don't think there's a point in supporting 586 in a future release. -- A tit a day keeps the vet away. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
It'll hit the embedded world pretty hard. Today you can buy a brand new soekris box that only runs i586. Brand new off the shelf, today. My 6 or 7 year old one is running right now as an asterisk server at home. Draws about 5 watts. Its not exactly the newest piece of hardware they sell but its still available as an embedded / embeddable device. It draws about twice the power of a rasp-pi, a good solid one amp at 12 volts. Its kinda sad because two years ago there were threads on the soekris boards about having to move from Ubuntu to Debian when i586 was dropped by Ubuntu and now they'll have to move AGAIN just two years later to ... something. Its not like I'm going to throw out a working PBX because of some OS foolishness. I'll move mine to netbsd or whatever else runs on a i586. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.soekris.technical/18358 The root cause of the problem is the Debian/Ubuntu ecosystem is moving away from the "universal OS" mantra and toward being a GNOME bootloader for tablets and everything else can just go away. Thats the war... abandonment of entire industry sectors or weird init decisions are merely a small battle, the war is the move toward turning the OS into a GNOME bootloader for tablets. Note that soekris used to sell embedded low power 486 boards until semi-recently. I actually used one as a firewall until I needed more horsepower for some tasks. Excellent hardware BTW. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Fri, 6 May 2016 00:17:31 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:15:56PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > Debian is dropping suppoort for i586. It seems to mean tht the > > i386 platform will no longer run on 586 processors, as gcc starts > > to generate instructions that are incalid there. > [...] > > I don't know if we need to watch out for anything relating this in > > Devuan. Do we plan to support and continue to support i586? > > Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you > pretty much exactly in Raspbian's position. > > You'd need to: > * reconfigure and rebuild kernel for -585 flavour > * undo the not-yet-done merging of libc6-i686 > * (no source changes) rebuild every package! > * watch out for regressions > > The last point can be mostly automated -- you can use the attached > script to determine the CPU needed to execute a given binary. > > The result will be one-way compatibility: your packages will run on > any Debian-compatible system but importing from Debian or any other > external repository will require a rebuild. > > Not worth the effort, I'd say. Jessie still has four years of > security support (I don't think Devuan has the manpower to provide > security support for 40k+ packages alone after Debian ends it), and > if you'd _still_ run that museal machine at that time, you can > reconsider. We need to pick our battles. I bought a Pentium II, a 686, in 1998. That's a little over 18 years ago. The last 32 bit Pentium, the Pentium 4, stopped selling in August 2008: That's 8 years ago. And since 2004, you could, and many people did, buy 64 bit machines. A 586 or 32 bit machine is doubtlessly so old that getting one replacement part would cost quite enough to just dumpsterize the computer (unless one has a basement full of cannibalizable computers). How many peoples' lives would we improve by taking over the i586 version? SteveT Steve Litt April 2016 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Debian is dropping support for i586. Are we?
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:15:56PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > Debian is dropping suppoort for i586. It seems to mean tht the i386 > platform will no longer run on 586 processors, as gcc starts to generate > instructions that are incalid there. [...] > I don't know if we need to watch out for anything relating this in Devuan. > Do we plan to support and continue to support i586? Reverting this in a derivative is possible, although it lands you pretty much exactly in Raspbian's position. You'd need to: * reconfigure and rebuild kernel for -585 flavour * undo the not-yet-done merging of libc6-i686 * (no source changes) rebuild every package! * watch out for regressions The last point can be mostly automated -- you can use the attached script to determine the CPU needed to execute a given binary. The result will be one-way compatibility: your packages will run on any Debian-compatible system but importing from Debian or any other external repository will require a rebuild. Not worth the effort, I'd say. Jessie still has four years of security support (I don't think Devuan has the manpower to provide security support for 40k+ packages alone after Debian ends it), and if you'd _still_ run that museal machine at that time, you can reconsider. -- A tit a day keeps the vet away. #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; ### Identify instruction sets used in a binary file. ### # Tavis Ormandy 2003 # Improvments by Will Woods # Perl convertion by Georgi Georgiev # Updated by Ryan Hill # Updated by Ward Poelmans 2009 # initialize everything to zero. my ($i486,$i586,$ppro,$mmx,$sse,$sse2,$sse3,$sse41,$sse42,$sse4a,$amd,$amd2,$cpuid) = (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0); my ($vendor, $subarch); # unfortunately there are mnemonic collisions between vendor sets # so check vendor_id string, and enable relevant sets. print "Checking vendor_id string... "; my $param = $ARGV[0]; unless (defined $ARGV[1] and $ARGV[0] eq "--vendor") { open FLAGS, "grep -Em1 '^flags' /proc/cpuinfo | " or die "could not read cpu flags in $!\n"; #while ( $flags my @flags=; close FLAGS; open PIPE, "grep -Em1 '^vendor_id.*: ' /proc/cpuinfo | cut -d' ' -f2 | " or die "could not read vendor_id"; $_ = ; close PIPE; $param = $ARGV[0]; if (/GenuineIntel/) { $vendor="intel"; print "GenuineIntel\n" } elsif (/AuthenticAMD/) { $vendor="amd"; } elsif (/CyrixInstead/) { $vendor="cyrix"; print "CyrixInstead\n" } elsif (/GenuineTMx86/) { $vendor="transmeta"; print "GenuineTMx86\n" } else{ $vendor="other"; print "other\n" } if ($vendor eq "amd") { foreach ( @flags ) { if (/sse2/) { $vendor="amd64"; } } } if ($vendor eq "amd64") { print "AuthenticAMD 64\n"; } elsif ($vendor eq "amd"){ print "AuthenticAMD\n"; } } else { ($vendor) = $ARGV[1]; printf "%s\n", $vendor; $param = $ARGV[2]; } # quick sanity tests. defined $param or die "usage: $0 [--vendor=intel|amd|amd64|cyrix|transmeta] /path/to/binary\n"; -e $param or die "error: $param does not exist.\n"; -r $param or die "error: cant read $param.\n"; printf "Disassembling %s, please wait...\n", $param; # do the disassembling. # # see binutils src include/opcode/* --de. my (@cpus, %cpus, %inscpu); sub addins($@) { my ($cpu, @instructions) = @_; push(@cpus, $cpu), $cpus{$cpu}=$#cpus unless $cpus{$cpu}; $inscpu{$_} = $cpus{$cpu} for @instructions; } addins "i486", ("bswap","cmpxchg","invd","invlpg","wbinvd","xadd"); addins "i586", ("cmpxchg8b","rdmsr","rdtsc","wrmsr"); addins "ppro", ("cmova","cmovae","cmovb","cmovbe","cmovc","cmove","cmovg","cmovge","cmovl","cmovle","cmovna","cmovnae","cmovnb","cmovnbe","cmovnc","cmovne","cmovng","cmovnge","cmovnl","cmovnle","cmovno","cmovnp","cmovns","cmovnz","cmovo","cmovp","cmovs","cmovz","fcmova","fcmovae","fcmovb","fcmovbe","fcmove","fcmovna","fcmovnae","fcmovnb","fcmovnbe","fcmovne","fcmovnu","fcmovu","fcomi","fcomip","fcompi","fucomi","fucomip","fucompi","fxrstor","fxsave","rdpmc","sysenter","sysexit","ud2","ud2a","ud2b"); addins "mmx", ("emms","movd","movq","packssdw","packsswb","packuswb","paddb","paddd","paddsb","paddsw","paddusb","paddusw","paddw","pand","pandn","pcmpeqb","pcmpeqd","pcmpeqw","pcmpgtb","pcmpgtd","pcmpgtw","pmaddwd","pmulhw","pmullw","por","pslld","psllq","psllw","psrad","psraw","psrld","psrlq","psrlw","psubb","psubd","psubsb","psubsw","psubusb","psubusw","psubw","punpckhbw","punpckhdq","punpckhwd","punpcklbw","punpckldq","punpcklwd","pxor"); addins "sse", ("addps","addss","andnps","andps","cmpeqps","cmpeqss","cmpleps","cmpless","cmpltps","cmpltss","cmpneqps","cmpneqss","cmpnleps","cmpnless","cmpnltps","cmpnltss","cmpordps","cmpordss","cmpps","cmpss","cmpunordps","cmp