Hi,
The memory mapping code is a bit cluttered with i860-specific hacks, and
the pic/pit/gdt/clock code is clutter with PS2-specific hacks.
Maybe we should drop the support for these oldies?
(for those who may not know i860:
)
Samuel
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

From my very brief experience with GNU Mach, i came to realise
that it is filled with oldies that are not needed anymore. So,
whoever vollunteers to clean up some of them, is more than welcome.
Constantine
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Message
From: "Constantine Kousoulos" <wuwei (AT) freemail (DOT) gr>
Cc: <bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: Drop i860 and PS2 support ?

From my very brief experience with GNU Mach, i came to realise that it is
filled with oldies that are not needed anymore. So, whoever vollunteers to
clean up some of them, is more than welcome.

Constantine

I'd happily work on removing some of this cruft as part of my warnings
clean-up, if I could just get some response. ;-)

Thanks,

Barry deFreese (aka bddebian)

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Samuel Thibault, le Thu 02 Nov 2006 00:17:57 +0100, a :
The memory mapping code is a bit cluttered with i860-specific hacks, and
the pic/pit/gdt/clock code is clutter with PS2-specific hacks.

Maybe we should drop the support for these oldies?

Put another way for more probability of success:

Will anyone complain if I drop the support?

Samuel

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Samuel Thibault wrote:
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 02 Nov 2006 00:17:57 +0100, a :
>The memory mapping code is a bit cluttered with i860-specific hacks, and
>the pic/pit/gdt/clock code is clutter with PS2-specific hacks.
>>
>Maybe we should drop the support for these oldies?

Put another way for more probability of success:

Will anyone complain if I drop the support?

Not me.

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Message
From: "Samuel Thibault" <samuel.thibault (AT) ens-lyon (DOT) org>
To: <bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Drop i860 and PS2 support ?

Samuel Thibault, le Thu 02 Nov 2006 00:17:57 +0100, a :
>The memory mapping code is a bit cluttered with i860-specific hacks, and
>the pic/pit/gdt/clock code is clutter with PS2-specific hacks.
>>
>Maybe we should drop the support for these oldies?
>
Put another way for more probability of success:

Will anyone complain if I drop the support?

Samuel
--

Not I. :)

Barry

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Constantine Kousoulos wrote:
From my very brief experience with GNU Mach, i came to realise that it
is filled with oldies that are not needed anymore. So, whoever
vollunteers to clean up some of them, is more than welcome.

And such clean-ups would make GNU Mach a bit more pleasant for hacking
and fixing ;-)

Regards,
ogi

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Hi,
, I've done it. And this led me to the question: will anyone complain
if I drop the iPSC386 support?
Samuel
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Hello!

Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 01:04:32AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
, I've done it.

Thanks! I applied some minor modifications to your ChangeLog entries,
ask me if there are questions about that.

And this led me to the question: will anyone complain if I drop the
iPSC386 support?

I wouldn't expect someone to complain Likewise for `iPSC860', I
guess.

Regards,
Thomas

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

Nb3iGhDQTxyegjU1hI=
=ERVI
PGP SIGNATURE

Thomas Schwinge, le Sun 05 Nov 2006 15:36:06 +0100, a :
And this led me to the question: will anyone complain if I drop the
iPSC386 support?

I wouldn't expect someone to complain Likewise for `iPSC860', I
guess.

Uh, I've also encountered some #if MB1/MB2/EXL. Does anyone know what
these are?

Samuel

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Hello!

Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 04:48:44PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Uh, I've also encountered some #if MB1/MB2/EXL. Does anyone know what
these are?

Not me. And I somehow have the feeling that we might remove everything
that isn't currently used and doesn't look like it might be in the (near?
whatever that is) future. When removing such oldies, you might
consider to perhaps put some comments into the top-level `DEVELPMENT'
file's ``HISTRY'' chapter.

Regards,
Thomas

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

qH6ZjlG5rtyN5ypJDQWTSF4=
=cr13
PGP SIGNATURE

Samuel Thibault wrote:
Hi,
, I've done it. And this led me to the question: will anyone complain
if I drop the iPSC386 support?
Samuel
Go ahead!
Constantine
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Hi,

The saga continues. There are bits of code here and there for
supporting FPE (Floating Point Emulation). Nowadays' x86 processors
(486DX or later) all have FP units, so couldn't we drop FPE support?

Samuel

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

Hello!

Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:39:31PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
The saga continues.

Did you see that one? :-)

21:37 <antrikurgs gnumach still has support for i287
21:40 <antrik./i386/i386/fpu.c: fp_kind = FP_287;

There are bits of code here and there for
supporting FPE (Floating Point Emulation). Nowadays' x86 processors
(486DX or later) all have FP units

and I wouldn't expect someone to seriously try running a GNU/Hurd
system on a pre-Pentium.

so couldn't we drop FPE support?

No objection from my side.

Regards,
Thomas

Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd (AT) gnu (DOT) org

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

hhqJphG7V1oN/LHCGJpJUlQ=
=L2KY
PGP SIGNATURE