On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:21:46PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> (the extra register used by PIE > hurts i386 mode a lot more than amd64
> mode with its extra registers),
Just for the sake of correctness: it hurts much less on x86_64, because
there is IP-relative addressing for code *and* data.
You've made a pretty big assumption there.
When we see something we don't think is important, we delete the
email and carry on with more important things.
You think hand-tuning this one paragraph is going to reduce the amount
of mail we delete because it doesn't matter? It won't.
A large numbe
Because you might not wish to deal with people like me posting dmesg's
of absurdly deficient hardware on the lists. Putting minimum values up
means you can cast off everything you don't want to bother trying to
support as 'not worth your time', without anyone else having to
discover that it was
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Nobody should really by using i386 for new systems. The advantages
> of running amd64-compatible hardware are too big to ignore. Lower power
> consumption, much faster in most cases (the extra register used by PIE
> hurts i386 mode a lot more than amd64 mode with its ext
Nobody should really by using i386 for new systems. The advantages
of running amd64-compatible hardware are too big to ignore. Lower power
consumption, much faster in most cases (the extra register used by PIE
hurts i386 mode a lot more than amd64 mode with its extra registers),
more address space
Le Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:37:12 +0200,
Janne Johansson a écrit :
> Den tors 23 sep. 2021 kl 14:27 skrev Patrick Harper :
> >
> > If there will continue to be a minimum disk value then 600MB wouldn't
> > be nearly enough for swap, maybe 2GB for a whole disk?
>
> Could this handwaving please stop?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 8:37 AM Janne Johansson wrote:
> Could this handwaving please stop? If anyone wants, make a i386 VM and
> do a binary search and record the minimums.
>
I have done this exercise, but not for kernel relinking -- it was for doing
full system rebuilds.
Starting with 2.0/i386
Den tors 23 sep. 2021 kl 14:27 skrev Patrick Harper :
>
> If there will continue to be a minimum disk value then 600MB wouldn't
> be nearly enough for swap, maybe 2GB for a whole disk?
Could this handwaving please stop? If anyone wants, make a i386 VM and
do a binary search and record the minimums
If there will continue to be a minimum disk value then 600MB wouldn't
be nearly enough for swap, maybe 2GB for a whole disk?
--
Patrick Harper
paia...@fastmail.com
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, at 11:29, Zé Loff wrote:
> IMHO, stating minimum disk space requirements might be useful for
> determining
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:29:53AM +0100, Zé Loff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Patrick Harper wrote:
> > If the situation isn't going to change anytime soon then I have some
> > diffs for INSTALL.i386 and INSTALL.amd64. The latter has not specified
> > disk requirements, I g
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Patrick Harper wrote:
> If the situation isn't going to change anytime soon then I have some
> diffs for INSTALL.i386 and INSTALL.amd64. The latter has not specified
> disk requirements, I guess since anyone who owns an amd64 system will
> very likely be
If the situation isn't going to change anytime soon then I have some
diffs for INSTALL.i386 and INSTALL.amd64. The latter has not specified
disk requirements, I guess since anyone who owns an amd64 system will
very likely be using a disk big enough for X, so I figured that the
same would apply
12 matches
Mail list logo