Hi, Rob Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 14-Apr-2007 16:14.22 (BST), Al Stone wrote: > > I personally have no idea why there are ia32-libs on ia64. The > > only possible reasons I can think of are: (1) older versions of > > the processor did have a small x86 processor on chip so it could > > execute x86 binaries, or (2) it allows one to use the Intel ia32el > > layer (a software layer to emulate x86 on ia64, but unfortunately > > proprietary code). > > I don't think ia32el is in Debian (nothing in pool/i/ for contrib or > non-free). > > The wikipedia article on ia64 sheds a little light, and indicates that point > 1 is probably correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ia64#IA-32_support): > > "The original IA-64 architecture included support for IA-32 instructions > and could therefore run the many thousands of applications available for > x86-based systems. This can eliminate the added expense and complexity of > deploying a second server or porting code from IA-32 to IA-64. However, > performance was slower than for native IA-64 code and about 50% slower > than for the same IA-32 code running on x86 servers of the time." > > It goes on to say that it was removed starting with Montecito in July 2006, > and replaced with emulation instead. > > I'm giving up on the thought of building i386 binaries on ia64 in that case! > > Thanks for the heads up. > rob. what does the ia64 porters say about this? Is ia32-libs on ia64 completly useless and just dead weight? As maintainer I wouldn't mind dropping the ia64 parts of the package. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
