[ros-bugs] [Bug 1264] Use of pentium-class instructions
ReactOS.Bugzilla at www.reactos.org
ReactOS.Bugzilla at www.reactos.org
Mon Jan 28 02:31:07 CET 2008
http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1264
Colin Finck <mail at colinfinck.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mail at colinfinck.de
AssignedTo|ros-bugs at reactos.org |fireball at reactos.com
amine48rz <amine48rz at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
DrV <daniel.verkamp at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |daniel.verkamp at gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Colin Finck <mail at colinfinck.de> 2007-10-06 22:52:04 CET ---
Fireball, you recently raised the question about pentium support in the IRC
channel, so I think you're the best to decide here :-D
--- Comment #8 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 01:49:42 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #9 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 01:55:27 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #10 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:00:29 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #11 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:05:28 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #12 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:10:28 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #13 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:15:28 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #14 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:18:06 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #15 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:23:28 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #16 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:28:28 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #17 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:30:14 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--- Comment #18 from ThePhysicist <timo.kreuzer at web.de> 2008-01-28 02:31:06 CET ---
Any news about the 486 compatible functions? Alex?
BTW: Do we really need hotpatching at all for this? If someone is really going
to run ros on a 486 machine (which I doubt someone would do except for testing
purposes) it's probably not too much to ask to recompile with a compile time
option set.
IMHO 486 compatibility is not worth a single clock cycle.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
More information about the Ros-bugs
mailing list