Blöchl Bernhard <b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net> writes: > May be I have not correctly explained the problem.
Maybe you refuse to understand the problem in spite of it getting explained again and again. > First, I HAVE installed a 64bit version of Linux > Aspire-ES1-571 ~ $ uname -a > Linux bb-Aspire-ES1-571 4.10.0-38-generic #42~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Tue > Oct 10 16:30:51 UTC 2017 i686 i686 i686 GNU/Linux No, this is a 32bit version of Linux. A 64bit version would be x86_64 rather than i686. > Second, as a fact I CANNOT get installed the 64bit version of lilypond > on that system! Because it is a 32bit system. > I only could install the 32bit version and I did. At least I have a > running version of lilypond. > > But I wanted to make that curiousity public. Do have other users that > experience? Unless you are going to install a 64bit system, you are not going to be able to run a 64bit version of LilyPond. Or a 64bit version of _any_ software. I am leaving the rest of the (increasingly incredible) conversation appended for reference. > Am 01.11.2017 09:44, schrieb bit version of Linux > David Kastrup: >> Blöchl Bernhard <b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net> writes: >> >>> The 32 bit lilypond installs without problem. No further problem. >>> >>> I find it curious that a 64 bit linux installs seamlessly on that >>> laptop. >> >> Why wouldn't it? Most modern CPUs support 64 bit mode. >> >>> Linux Mint definitely does not install a 64 bit version on a 32 bit >>> systems but definitely cries for a 32 bit install. >> >> Your laptop is perfectly fine with 64 bit systems. But you installed a >> 32 bit system. Which the laptop is fine with also. But current CPUs >> tend to be optimized for performance in 64 bit mode, so unless your >> physical memory and disk space make it prudent to stick with 32 bits >> (like having less than 4GB of main memory or your disk almost filled >> up), upgrading to 64 bit systems makes sense. >> >>> Concerning to reports about Pentium 3556U >>> it offers 64-bit OS support, Features SSE3 / SSE4.1 / SSE4.2 >>> instructions >>> May be "OS support" is something less then full 64 bit support? (May >>> be a possible explanation.) >> >> Your CPU would support 64 bit systems, but you are not running a 64 bit >> system. >> >> A 32 bit kernel _cannot_ run 64 bit code, even if the CPU itself would >> be capable of it. >> >> In contrast, a 64 bit kernel can be made to run 32 bit applications as >> well. Within limits: some ioctl calls are inherently system dependent, >> so running 32bit sound applications (for example) on a 64 bit kernel is >> likely to cause trouble. >> >>> Eventually there is a compiler option missing in make? I do not do >>> further analyses. >> >> Make has nothing to do with it. > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
