Re: emap

[Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:25:24 +0400
Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost> wrote:

> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:50:58PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> >> Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
> >> 
> >> > yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> >> >> hi,
> >> >> 
> >> >> what's the status of emap and pipe?
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > ... and encourage our users to use amd64 instead
> >> > of i386.
> >> 
> >> I'm sorry to intervene, what about WINE? Unless we're going to have it
> >> functional on amd64, encouraging is useless.
> >
> > I don't understand your comment.  Are you suggesting that a large fraction 
> > of
> > NetBSD/i386 users use WINE and therefore would not be able to switch to the
> > amd64 port?
> 
> I mean that those users who could switch most probably have switched already.
> And one of serious reasons to stay on i386 is functional WINE.

Although I didn't think it'd be necessary to say so until this point, I
admit that I myself didn't really understand what Takashi said about
recommending amd64 over i386.  If the hardware is 32-bit, or on
constrained memory devices, i386 definitely needs to be supported.

But then again, I'm not familiar with the emap code; from the bits I
read in this thread, it could serve to optimize pipes?  That pipes can
be better optimized on amd64 than on i386 is no problem to me, so I
assumed that he was talking about encouraging users to use amd64 if
they want to take advantage of a particular feature, not that i386
would get deprecated and start to become unsupported.

It would be nice if someone who knows better could explain better what
was meant, or confirm what I said above (if I understood correctly),
considering that it caused some worries...

Thanks,
-- 
Matt