<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>If you think it this way, why bother with the i686 build at all? Your dual core 2010 vintage Intel Atom D510 can run 64-bit CentOS 7 anyway. This is why dropping SSE2 requirement would be benefitical as it would allow running it with a larger amount of x86 CPUs that can't run the 64-bit variation at all.<br><br></div>I do think there are a lot of x86 systems that have around 512 MB of RAM that could still be used as small office servers, routers etc. that would really benefit from a stable and well supported distribution like CentOS is. They are not very useful for desktop use but many server tasks haven't changed that much in 10 years but have been virtualized or have higher traffic handling requirements. Surveying CentOS 6 users who run the i686 version on non-SSE2 CPUs would also give some sort of indication how many potential users are going to be left out and would need to change their enterprise grade distribution to something else when EOL hits.<br></div><br></div>My specific use case isn't really worth CentOS 7. I don't think I would ever *really* run anything useful on a 12 year old laptop, it was just the only x86 system I still have around. The CPU generation itself, however, isn't completely useless for some other tasks.<br><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Trevor Hemsley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:trevor.hemsley@ntlworld.com" target="_blank">trevor.hemsley@ntlworld.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Is it really worth the effort? The last
Pentium III was released in 2002 and you couldn't buy them after
2003 so we're talking about machines that are 12 or more years
old. The fastest one you could ever buy is outperformed by a
factor of more than 2 times by each core on my dual core 2010
vintage Intel Atom D510.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 05/06/15 21:22, Toni Spets wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>This would be rather unfortunate as that would also leave
out all 32-bit only AMD processors (Athlon XP & co) as
well according to Wikipedia where it's said Athlon 64 was the
first one to add SSE2 and it can already run the 64-bit CentOS
anyway.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I'm hoping there is more people that could +1 having
support for pre-SSE2 CPUs so it would be seriously considered
even though it might need massive rebuild of the multilib
packages. EPEL doesn't have multilib yet (right?) so they can
still adapt to whatever is going to be done. The packages
would run on upstream as well anyway.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Taking into account the actual computing power of CPUs, I
don't think it's unreasonable to run CentOS 7 on Pentium III
or Athlon XP.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for considering.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Johnny
Hughes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnny@centos.org" target="_blank">johnny@centos.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 06/05/2015 05:46 AM, Vladimir Stackov
wrote:<br>
> Greetings,<br>
><br>
> currently we are maintaining own CentOS 7 i686
rebuild and I would like<br>
> to kindly ask you to replace following macros from
gcc.spec:<br>
><br>
> %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7<br>
> %ifarch %{ix86}<br>
> --with-arch=x86-64 \<br>
> %endif<br>
> %ifarch x86_64<br>
> --with-arch_32=x86-64 \<br>
> %endif<br>
><br>
> with that:<br>
><br>
> %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7<br>
> %ifarch %{ix86}<br>
> --with-arch=i686 \<br>
> %endif<br>
> %ifarch x86_64<br>
> --with-arch_32=i686 \<br>
> %endif<br>
><br>
> x86-64 causes gcc to use extended instruction set
for produced code and<br>
> it's impossible to run CentOS 7 i686 on older
systems without SSE2<br>
> instruction because of SIGILL.<br>
> This affects Pentium 3, old VIA CPUs, old Xeons and
some others.<br>
><br>
> Is that possible?<br>
> Thanks!<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<snip><br>
<br>
I don't think we can do this as I also use the RPMs produced
for the<br>
multilib portion of CentOS-7 x86_64 and we want our RPMs to
be like<br>
those from upstream for that purpose.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Johnny Hughes<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org" target="_blank">CentOS-devel@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div>Toni Spets</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
<a href="mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org" target="_blank">CentOS-devel@centos.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org">CentOS-devel@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Toni Spets</div>
</div></div></div></div></div>