hi, > On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:25:24 +0400 > Aleksej Saushev <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thor Lancelot Simon <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:50:58PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote: >> >> Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> >> > [email protected] (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote: >> >> >> hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> what's the status of emap and pipe? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > ... and encourage our users to use amd64 instead >> >> > of i386. >> >> >> >> I'm sorry to intervene, what about WINE? Unless we're going to have it >> >> functional on amd64, encouraging is useless. >> > >> > I don't understand your comment. Are you suggesting that a large fraction >> > of >> > NetBSD/i386 users use WINE and therefore would not be able to switch to the >> > amd64 port? >> >> I mean that those users who could switch most probably have switched already. >> And one of serious reasons to stay on i386 is functional WINE. > > Although I didn't think it'd be necessary to say so until this point, I > admit that I myself didn't really understand what Takashi said about > recommending amd64 over i386. If the hardware is 32-bit, or on > constrained memory devices, i386 definitely needs to be supported.
it isn't my recommendation. rmind@'s. YAMAMOTO Takashi > > But then again, I'm not familiar with the emap code; from the bits I > read in this thread, it could serve to optimize pipes? That pipes can > be better optimized on amd64 than on i386 is no problem to me, so I > assumed that he was talking about encouraging users to use amd64 if > they want to take advantage of a particular feature, not that i386 > would get deprecated and start to become unsupported. > > It would be nice if someone who knows better could explain better what > was meant, or confirm what I said above (if I understood correctly), > considering that it caused some worries... > > Thanks, > -- > Matt
