x86 boot code build

[Ulrich Spörlein]

On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 10:04:26 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com> writes:
> > I would target the appropriate architecture (amd64) where it matters
> > (amd64), and target the lowest sane common denominator on i386. In
> > reality, what does a couple MB mean on amd64 vs i386?
> 
> 1) Nobody mentioned amd64 - this is about i386.
> 
> 2) It's not a question of *size* but of *performance*.  By targeting the
>    least capable platform that our users are likely to encounter
>    (pentium-mmx) instead of one which is virtually eradicated (486), we
>    can use features that are available on the former but not the latter.
> 
>    Someone said they'd like to target SSE2, but that would leave many
>    common embedded systems out in the cold.  If we do that, we should
>    provide two sets of binaries; one set for sse2-capable machines
>    (which covers all i386 desktop and server machines made in the last
>    ten years) and one set for pentium-mmx (which covers the soekris and
>    other popular SFF / embedded systems).

Seriously? How about we leave i386 as is for the embedded folks and just
move forward with amd64. Any improvements made on our i386 support are
useless to about 98% of our users. It's 2012 people ...

kthxbai
Uli