On Feb 21, 2012, at 14:16 , R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:30, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 08:13 , R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
[snip]
>>> FYI, sqrt5 has been down for awhile since it is extremely prone to
>>> kernel panics and I have yet to figure out the issue. My guess at this
>>> point in time is that these are due to it using the 32-bit kernel,
>>> which apple clearly isn't supporting any more -- the main requirement
>>> of 10.8 over 10.7 is support for the 64-bit kernel.
>>
>> Is this true?
>
> Positive:
>
> $ uname -pr
> 11.3.0 i386
>
>> My 10.7 system has a 64-bit kernel, at least according to 'file':
>>
>> $ file /mach_kernel
>> /mach_kernel: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
>> /mach_kernel (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
>> /mach_kernel (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
>
> OSX has included extensions in the 32-bit kernel to execute 64-bit
> code since leopard (or potentially earlier), this only indicates that
> the kernel + hardware supports executing 64-bit code.
I don't think this is really correct. This is what the Apple website says:
=========
These Macs use the 64-bit kernel by default in Mac OS X v10.6.
• Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
• MacBook Pro (Early 2011)
• iMac (21.5-inch and 27-inch, Mid 2011)
=========
I'm running the MacBook Pro (Early 2011). 'uname -pr' says what you report,
but I think that is the "basic ISP" architecture, which is, and I assume will
be, i386.
The kernel being "x86_64" means that it actually runs in 64-bit mode.
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
--------
If you're not confused,
You're not paying attention
--------
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
