Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:42:42PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 10.10.2017 13:27, Martin Husemann wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:03:42AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:02:48AM +, Martin Husemann wrote: > >>> I think you are confusing things. We do not support FPU emulation in the > >>> kernel, but booting on FPU-less machines should still work (with a > >>> softfloat > >>> userland). > >> > >> I don't think we should support every esoteric case just in case someone > >> wants to complete support it. We haven't run on such machines in over a > >> decade. > > > > We have not provided a usable userland for it, but we were able to boot > > on them. > > > > The cost for this is minimal (given the overall mess of FPU save area > > sizes on x86), no point in cleaning this up. > > > > Martin > > > > Agreed, there are still users asking for no-FPU x86 support. We badly > closed one of their latest PR as wontfix... Given that nothing materialized in the last decade, I'm agreeing with Maya here. I consider this dead code. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:12:32PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote: > I'm not randomly seeking out code to delete. I was poking at nearby code > due to a bug report. I saw dead code, so I deleted it. I have some more > changes to nearby code that I haven't committed / was debating. It wasn't dead code. Martin
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
I'm not randomly seeking out code to delete. I was poking at nearby code due to a bug report. I saw dead code, so I deleted it. I have some more changes to nearby code that I haven't committed / was debating.
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
On 10.10.2017 13:27, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:03:42AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:02:48AM +, Martin Husemann wrote: >>> I think you are confusing things. We do not support FPU emulation in the >>> kernel, but booting on FPU-less machines should still work (with a softfloat >>> userland). >> >> I don't think we should support every esoteric case just in case someone >> wants to complete support it. We haven't run on such machines in over a >> decade. > > We have not provided a usable userland for it, but we were able to boot > on them. > > The cost for this is minimal (given the overall mess of FPU save area > sizes on x86), no point in cleaning this up. > > Martin > Agreed, there are still users asking for no-FPU x86 support. We badly closed one of their latest PR as wontfix... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:03:42AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:02:48AM +, Martin Husemann wrote: > > I think you are confusing things. We do not support FPU emulation in the > > kernel, but booting on FPU-less machines should still work (with a softfloat > > userland). > > I don't think we should support every esoteric case just in case someone > wants to complete support it. We haven't run on such machines in over a > decade. We have not provided a usable userland for it, but we were able to boot on them. The cost for this is minimal (given the overall mess of FPU save area sizes on x86), no point in cleaning this up. Martin
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:02:48AM +, Martin Husemann wrote: > I think you are confusing things. We do not support FPU emulation in the > kernel, but booting on FPU-less machines should still work (with a softfloat > userland). I don't think we should support every esoteric case just in case someone wants to complete support it. We haven't run on such machines in over a decade.
