From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9ab217670510301315n3ac47987l@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:15:45 -0800
From: "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 386
In-Reply-To: <9754e46bd89fc67ac49939b849c4e414@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <9ab217670510301234p506ae1e3j@mail.gmail.com>
	<9754e46bd89fc67ac49939b849c4e414@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a2b06f14-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

2005/10/30, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com <jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com>:
> On Sun Oct 30 15:34:52 EST 2005, devon.odell@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
> > My understanding of how this got into the embedded chipset stuff was
> > that a suggestion was made to deprecate 486 as well, which I don't
> > think we should do at all. Get rid of 386, support 486+.
> > ...
>
> If you keep the 486 then there is no point in removing the 386,
> you would gain nothing.

Huh? I thought we would gain the use of the page invalidation instruction?