Re: emap

[yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi)]

hi,

> 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.

it isn't my recommendation.  rmind@'s.

YAMAMOTO Takashi

> 
> 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