--Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:11:25PM +1100, Terence Tan wrote:
> I'm also using Bruce ONeel's distribution. It's basically a standard
> NetBSD distribution except the userland is compiled as -msoft-float (to
> bypass the fpu). No simulation needed.
>=20
> I'm working off a stock Performa 475, and everything is working
> swimmingly well. Obviously everything has to be re-built with
> - -msoft-float, but I've set up pkgsrc... got apache, perl, postfix, and
> other good things compiled and working. Nary a segmentation fault in
> sight.
>=20
> I love it.

Color me impressed. :^>

Wish that'd been around in '96 or so when I replaced the LC040 in
my Performa 636 so that I could get a useful OS working on it.
(Though more because I had to wait for the part... it couldn't have
set me back more than $30.)

How's the performance relative to an 030 using NetBSD's fpu
emulation? (My guess would be pretty good, provided gcc can optimize
m68k decently these days; I can dig out an LC III to do some
benchmarking on the 030 side, if no one else has one handy.)

Is there a reliable way we can detect an LC040? Do we really just
want to do this instead of bothering to emulate fpu all the time for
mac68k in an fpu's absence, or are there negative consequences (say,
for math applications)?

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+U5OI9ehacAz5CRoRAjrGAJ9CX83yJ87dQj9ykXIaQ71Flev5qwCeIfzh
OMoKULpQPfnwGrYsyoXmd7A=
=m67E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o--