On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 05:39:44PM -0400, Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 23:26:56 +0200 > Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > > > Then this looks like a problem that needs to be looked at. There's no way > > that many people use gear from ≤ 2004 (or a brief throwback of early Atoms > > from 2008). > > Dont we have stats on how many download the 386 version, against how many for > 64 ?
Not sure if mirrors provide download stats; popcon is probably good enough. What I'm talking about is running i386 on 64-bit-capable CPUs. You can check that by ｢grep '^flags.*\bnx\b' /proc/cpuinfo｣ or checking the op-mode field in what lscpu says. There's a long list of reasons why that's a bad idea, especially when kernel is concerned; the only reason to the contrary is some memory saving in pointer-heavy code. 32-bit code also sees almost no upstream testing (at least on x86). If the machine has >2GB ram, running a 32-bit kernel should be a crime. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can. ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
