X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Please help resurrecting GDB for version 7.0 release
Date:	Tue, 5 May 2009 11:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Organization:	http://groups.google.com
Lines:	21
Message-ID:	<ec2926a6-ab48-4281-9e18-94f94cfd76bf@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
References:	<83zldveryw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <684bdd55-b464-4e61-b28e-28774dc6ced8 AT o27g2000vbd DOT googlegroups DOT com>
	<83y6tfem02 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <_ZKdnV74euw2-2HUnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d AT earthlink DOT com>
	<83ws8zeb05 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <Z4adna6AJcyQeWDUnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d AT earthlink DOT com>
	<d5126d62-422a-4cdd-989e-96fa0f99359a AT h23g2000vbc DOT googlegroups DOT com>
	<83skjldt35 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <58b10f6a-eba5-4cc2-bef8-cc5fc4251e06 AT q2g2000vbr DOT googlegroups DOT com>
	<83fxfkdz2n DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <000b187c-f14b-4f37-81ca-0d93f4e1b2e1 AT g20g2000vba DOT googlegroups DOT com>
	<83eiv3e71o DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	65.13.115.246
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	posting.google.com 1241549124 27634 127.0.0.1 (5 May 2009 18:45:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Tue, 5 May 2009 18:45:24 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info:	t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
	posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
User-Agent:	G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10)
	Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On May 5, 1:30=A0pm, Eli Zaretskii <e DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
> > From: Rugxulo <rugx DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gmail DOT com>
> > Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 22:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > Yes, and then test a lot on old machines which I don't even know wher=
e
> > > to find. =A0
>
> > What old machines in particular? Just cpu revisions or OSes or both??
>
> That depends on the method you use for detecting the CPU. =A0If you use
> no privileged instructions, there should be no reason to test under
> different OSes, I think. =A0Otherwise, yes.

Then why do we need to test a bunch of machines? If we're just using
CPUID (which we check for before using), it's no problem. It's just
the "enable SSE" part that needs privileged instructions, and that's
probably not much of an issue for you, esp. since we prefer CWSDPMI
anyways, which supports it.

- Raw text -