From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2353 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Landley Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 0.9.8 released Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:35:56 -0600 Message-ID: <1354138556.2190.6@driftwood> References: <20121127024958.GA23123@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20121127184329.a20d1160.idunham@lavabit.com> <20121128033948.GO20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20121127205116.1dbf130f.idunham@lavabit.com> <20121128130507.GP20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354138575 7283 80.91.229.3 (28 Nov 2012 21:36:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:36:15 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2354-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Nov 28 22:36:27 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TdpIx-0008Sl-4A for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:36:27 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26056 invoked by uid 550); 28 Nov 2012 21:36:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 26048 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2012 21:36:15 -0000 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:subject:to:references:in-reply-to:x-mailer:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=YD+trIyHwuvS06uT35OHXCnBY7PccfxbDzzWWf5T/sg=; b=aEZsq0cECwOXzMri/8HgvjwAt+mWroqSVWHEhL6A63DzBkDYqWObLOEbDitU1yjcJz Kc6bya349gtQuRvfsFTzASRvaeEYpuO+UB3nlOx+fM/0ULKKozEhc8H/4vhxEVnT8m2n 1apyqgzJ4xOfaG6PM7Tmgcxlp5nMloWxNauFwUpigrrHuTh+/KwnWnoBg7c1rC4tzHC+ 4XpO82vp2uaSyyLac23FIWMEwAKQbKFWIOUKOk46q6TLFSnq2gwoatUh0mji5dcJb3ky ImFQBO3phuX2IefILsb0JnpH2HOVe5VQNYXuOWDtvliVIcGVVrOIS0ijbq2opu15W1pp F1vA== In-Reply-To: <20121128130507.GP20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (from dalias@aerifal.cx on Wed Nov 28 07:05:07 2012) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.11 Content-Disposition: inline X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWlpUK0P4JMDx5WUFnnPgKPUScxfVvpWklpDtGVZ6STYtdWI/BcUH9RttwsJ5k7NpckIy9 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2353 Archived-At: On 11/28/2012 07:05:07 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > This is fairly comparable to the mips1 issue and the need for ll/sc > emulation by the kernel. i386 is just fundamentally lacking in a way > that makes multi-tasking/multi-threading not workable with the POSIX > apis for it. The kernel should be emulating 'lock cmpxchg', like it > does ll/sc for mips1, and if it did, 386 would work fine. But > apparently nobody cares anyway.. Actually this just got removed literally today: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/28/445 If I recall, there was a longish discussion that boiled down to nobody =20 could find actual 386 hardware still in use to test any of this with. Technically intel still made them until 5 years ago, but for aerospace =20 and such rather than use in general purpose computers: http://www.reghardware.com/2006/05/18/intel_cans_386_486_960_cpus/ Rob=