On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 00:58 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On 8/19/05, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 22:55 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > > On 8/18/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > That brings us to the next step, what is the best way to get most > > > > libraries to > > > > build 64bit packages ? This would need some extensive change in the > > > > packaging > > > > stuff probably. > > > > > > As you know, there are two ways: > > > > > > a. Major hacking for each and every package. > > > b. Pure and sane 64-bit system. > > > > At the expense of performances, disk space, etc... of course > > You could apply that logic to the kernel just as well. Even on hardware > without 32-bit capability, an ILP32 model can be used. If it's so good, > why not?
Except that you don't expect to spend most of your time in the kernel. > Looking at the whole system, you can save disk space and get > better performance by having only 1 copy of each library stored > on disk, in RAM, and in the CPU's cache. It is thus not at all > certain that a mixed system will be faster than a pure system, > even if 64-bit is inherently slower when compared alone. Except that in a mixed system, I don't expect many binaries to be 64 bits. It's not like x86_64 where you benefit from additional registers & all. > I do note that the Itanic-style ABI features look pretty bad. If they > are as bad as they look, then a new ABI should come first. Heh, good luck :) Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
