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

[Scott Long]

John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2004 10:43 am, you wrote:
> 
>>In message: <20041019073145.GA29746 at thingy.tbd.co.nz>
>>
>>            Andrew Thompson <andy at fud.org.nz> writes:
>>: > I am afraid that recompiling a kernel on i386 will require several
>>: > days.
>>:
>>: Chicken and the egg. To support i386 it must be recompiled, so you would
>>: have to do it on another box anyway.
>>
>>The only people that will seriously want to use i386 these days are
>>the folks that build embedded systems.  Those you have to build on
>>some host then deploy to the target system.
>>
>>There are some benefits to having i386 in the tree.  However, there
>>are also a number of different places in the tree where things are
>>sub-optimal because we still have support for i386 in there.  The
>>desire to remove them is to make FreeBSD go faster on more modern
>>hardware.
> 
> 
> I think 6.0 is the place to drop 80386, not 5.x.  I'm already working on a p4 
> branch (jhb_no386) to remove 80396 support from HEAD, but I think 5.x should 
> be left as is in this regard.
> 

I agree that 80386 support should not be removed from RELENG_5, but I
don't see anything wrong with optmizing the common case and adding an
extra 80386-specific hurdle to 5.x.

Scott