From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:02:16 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <2a810e5901ddf3cbde877071719c103e@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130525135828.GA93918@intma.in>
References: <643973b9c0074170145322ddf82ea07c@gmx.de>
	<87ca50213f6c6d2bae4e45e0327c9fef@kw.quanstro.net>
	<20130525135828.GA93918@intma.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] broken floating point exceptions and fpregs
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5c342b22-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat May 25 09:59:39 EDT 2013, khm-9@intma.in wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 09:47:05AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> >=20
> > why don't we just let the 386 kernel rest in peace and use
> > 64-bit for sse?
>=20
> Let's all go buy new computers instead of using the ones we have?

x86_64 has been around since 2003, and on nearly every x86 machine for
the last 8 years.  sse2 has been around since 2001.  there is not a large
percentage of currently-running x86 machines that have sse2 but do not ha=
ve
x64-bit extensions, and this percentage is generally decreasing.

i put sse2 in the 386 kernel a few years ago, before the compilers suppor=
ted
it.  this was to support a linuxemu project.  the linux tools needed sse.

however, when it came to putting sse2 into a general kernel=E2=80=94and t=
hat
includes answering questions cinap is posing, like how do we deal with
different abis in the debugger, etc.=E2=80=94it seemed more disruption th=
an it
was worth.  now that the 64-bit kernel is real, and supports even low-end
hardware like atom, i would rather concentrate on making
the 64-bit kernel better.

- erik