cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S

[Scott Long]

Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 01:54:22PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> 
>>This has been discussed for years.  It should not be a surpise.  Frankly
>>I'm thrilled that David at least made it conditional rather than just
>>culling the support entirely as has been threatened so often in the
>>past.
>>
> 
> _What_ has been discussed for years?
> 
> It's been for years that GENERIC kernel doesn't support i386.
> 
> It's been for years that in 6.0-RELEASE the I386_CPU should
> go away.
> 
> It wasn't for years that default world won't run on i386.
> If this is going to happen (you speak for re@?), then let's
> declare it to the world first -- this is all I ask about.
> 
> If i386 support should go away completely, I'm fine with
> this too, but let's declare it before doing it.
>  
> 
>>i386 hasn't been supported in the default configuration for years. 
>>
> 
> This was true only about the kernel.

With this and your previous statement, I'm having a hard time 
understanding the big distinction between kernel and world supporting
i386.  If you want to install and run on an i386, you're going to
have to build a custom kernel.  I guess that changing the libraries
means that you're going to have to build a custom world now also, but
it's not taking away the ability to do so.  And you even said in a
previous email that favoring >i386 is a good thing.  So lets do it!
Like I said before, as long as the knobs to turn the support back on
are consistent and documented, nothing is lost!

> 
> 
>>Whether or not someone got it running with 5.2.1 doesn't change this.
>>
> 
> How's that?  i386 release notes say that running on i386 is still
> supported, just requires recompiling a kernel.  This is no longer
> the case after this commit.
> 
> 
>>The knobs are there to (theoretically) turn it on.  So as long as those
>>knobs are consistent and documented, nothing is lost.
>>
> 
> They are not, and my complaint was solely about it.  I ended
> up sending a patch to David for libc/Makefile per his request.
> 
> 
>>Guys, just decide on the name of the knob and be done with it.  Please!
>>This was settled years ago.  The 80386 isn't making an unexpected
>>comeback here that warrants a lot of fighting.
>>
> 
> This is not a fighting at all.  Rather, this is just a normal
> polishing of an incomplete commit.
> 
> 
> Cheers,

You seem to be focued on the change to the i386 library.  Please work
with David to find an acceptable combination of letters and numbers that
can be used to signify "Turn 80386 support back on" and then move on.
I think that we are all violently in agreement here and are picking on
each other for gramatical errors.  Fact is that 80386 doesn't work out
of the box, this is a new tweak that is needed to make it work, and if
you are concerned about the documentation and consistency of the tweak
then please fix it.

Scott