linux-kernel - Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 19:50:22 +0100 (CET)
From:   Sven Hartrumpf <hartrumpf@....net>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?

Hi.

I reported several significant speedups gained by the x32 ABI
for Scheme-based applications (compiled via a gcc backend), e.g.

https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/chicken-users/2015-09/msg00000.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/bigloo@inria.fr/msg00427.html
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/why-is-there-no-kernel-support-for-the-x32-abi-config-x86-x32/55156/9

As a tech startup in cognitive search and NLP (https://www.sempria.de/),
the benefits of the x32 ABI in terms of saved compute time and costs are
vital for us.

It's a pity that x32 has not gained the momentum that it deserves.
Two suggestions to change this:

1. One could extend a prominent page like https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
   with positive and negative results for applications w.r.t. the x32 ABI.
   I am willing to rewrite and update the results that I reported over the years.

2. The name x32 is too short, not search-engine friendly, and ambiguous (most
   people think it's about i386 ...). Is not there a better name?

Ciao
Sven