Technically, the x86 indicates the architecture, the 64 indicates the instruction set width. So x86_64 is a 64 bit chip, and the x86_32 is a 32 bit chip. Obviously, when apps (like LO) are marked as x86_64, they mean that it is intended for a 64 bit OS running on a 64 bit chip, as opposed to a 32 bit OS running on a 32 bit (if any still exist that are modern enough to be supported) or 64 bit chip. It does (should) not indicate a 32 bit app capable of running on a 64 bit OS, simple an app (32 or 64 bit) capable of running on a 64 bit OS. It would, infact, _suggest_ a 64 bit app, or at least that *something* had been done to differentiate it from the 32 bit version, otherwise why the distinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 Just, you know, FYI.... er... sorry... to bother anyone... :) Paul On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:46:16 +0200 Andrew Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a structure from the devs in a file naming convention, > indicating its a 32bit app (x86_), that can be installed on a 64bit > operating system (_64), not necessarily a 64bit app. And in the case > of LO, it's definitely not yet a 64bit app. They still have to code > 32bit apps to be functional on 64bit O/S's, unlike a naitve 32bit app > for a 32bit O/S. > > Hope this explains it better. > > Regards > > Andrew Brown > > On 26/07/2013 06:56 PM, James Knott wrote: > > Andrew Brown wrote: > >> > >> Umm!!! factually no, LO is still 32bit on Linux > > > > Then why is there an x86_64 version, when the 32 bit version should > > also work well? > > > > > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
