On Wed, 2003-07-30 20:10:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote in message <20030730181006.GB21734@fs.tum.de>: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 03:56:23PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > >... > > Please apply. Worst to say, even Debian seems to start using i486+ > > features (ie. libstdc++5 is SIGILLed on Am386 because there's no > > "lock" insn available)... > > Shouldn't the 486 emulation in the latest 386 kernel images in Debian > unstable take care of this? Specifically patched kernel? Sounds lame to me... Generic solution would be to have a generic implementation, IMHO. Up to now, I've nowhere found some hard facts that the new opcodes do measureable speed up things. Sure, saving some hundreds/thousands/... CPU cycles is nice - but not, if that's only 0.1% of the whole number of CPU cycles burned in a run. That doesn't, IMHO, really legitimate do unsupport the i386. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));