[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cbf7b4-9e77-adc1-8e18-14dd206f0b79@petrovitsch.priv.at>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:04:34 +0100
From: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: Cleaning up numbering for new x86 syscalls?
On 20/11/2018 08:33, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[...]
> 6. Is x32 even used in practice? I still think it was a mistake to add it
> and some significant distributions like Fedora are not enabling it.
x32 works as far as gcc/gas/ld is concerned (at least for compiling
non-trivial programs).
Finding a distribution that actually *delivers* x32 libraries is another
thing (and said non-trivial software uses ATM e.g. libxml2) - at least I
can't find an "x32-Ubuntu".
And no, I don't see a compelling reason to (try to) build the n+1.
architecture for the major distributions.
And yes, lots of stuff will not compile out of the box (especially if
one uses a somewhat sane set of gcc options - not only -Wall -Wextra
-Werror) but if one gets software to compile for i386 and x86_64,
getting it to compile for x32 is a Friday afternoon job (more or less).
And yes, there is enough hardware/systems out there that uses 64bit CPUs
(for whatever reason - if only that one can't get a 32bit CPU for that
board) but will never ever need more than 2-3 GB RAM .....
MfG,
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
Powered by blists - more mailing lists