AW: [MiNT] 030-only binaries

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> Von: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]Im Auftrag
> von kellis
> Gesendet am: Samstag, 17. April 1999 17:50
> An: Martin-Eric Racine
> Cc: Konrad Kokoszkiewicz; Thomas Binder; MiNT mailing list
> Betreff: Re: [MiNT] 030-only binaries
>
> On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
>
> > This reminds of the thread about FPU support from a while back.
> >
> > Someone (myself and a few others) were suggesting that there should
> > be two binaries in every archive:
> >
> > 1) 68000     plain-jane binary.
> >
> > 2) 68020-40  with 68881 FPU enabled by default.
> >
> > Many Falcon users complained that a Falcon is not factory-equiped
> > with an FPU and that bying one wasn't among their priorities.
>
> Yes, 030 doesn't mean FPU automatically.
> FPU should be optional. Same for 030 binary.
> That's the whole point in having the src for people to play wth
> options in the src to fit their system better. A standard version should
> work on all system. Then if you want more. recompile it.
>
> 68000 is a minimum.
> 030 bin why not.
> FPU bin, why not.

What's the difference of FPU enabled versions? Just that they check the _FPU
cookie and care about saving the FPU registers during a context switch? In
that case, I don't think it makes sense to support non-FPU versions...