On Feb 14, 2011, at 6:26 PM, David Daney wrote: > On 02/14/2011 06:14 PM, Joe Buck wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote: >>> It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB >>> but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers. >>> >>> This seems like a microscopically small market segment. I can't see any >>> sense in such an effort. >> >> I remember the RHEL hugemem patch being a big deal for lots of their >> customers, so a process could address the full 4GB instead of only 3GB >> on a 32-bit machine. If I recall correctly, upstream didn't want it >> (get a 64-bit machine!) but lots of paying customers clamored for it. >> >> (I personally don't have an opinion on whether it's worth bothering with). >> > > Also look at the new x86_64 ABI (See all those X32 psABI messages) that the > Intel folks are actively working on. This proposal is very similar to what > they are doing.
untrue. N32 is closer to the X32 ABI since it is limited to 2GB.
