Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gentoo Does An x32 Stage 3 Release Candidate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gentoo Does An x32 Stage 3 Release Candidate

    Phoronix: Gentoo Does An x32 Stage 3 Release Candidate

    Gentoo is one of the first Linux distributions to release a packaged installation for the Linux x32 architecture...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTExNTE

  • #2
    This is one of the big advantages of Gentoo

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not sure if I'll use x32 but kudos to Mike for keeping Gentoo rocking and being awesome in general.

      Comment


      • #4
        Please stop using the terms 'x32' and 'x64', the correct terms are x86-32 and x86-64. I'm not sure if we can blame Microsoft for starting this nonsense, but please keep at least the Linux world free from this stupid terminology.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by efikkan View Post
          Please stop using the terms 'x32' and 'x64', the correct terms are x86-32 and x86-64. I'm not sure if we can blame Microsoft for starting this nonsense, but please keep at least the Linux world free from this stupid terminology.
          Actually I think x32 is the correct term in this case. x86-32 and x86-64 refer to the traditional ABIs? x32 is something new and is not to be confused with the same term thrown about in the Windows world. I don't think Windows has an equivalent to this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chewi View Post
            Actually I think x32 is the correct term in this case. x86-32 and x86-64 refer to the traditional ABIs? x32 is something new and is not to be confused with the same term thrown about in the Windows world. I don't think Windows has an equivalent to this.
            I would say that x32 is probably correct, although x86_32 given current schemes could be right too, however you're wrong about the x86 naming scheme.

            x86 actually is in reference to the 8086 and then it's successors the 80186, 80286,80386,80486 (all these usually shorthanded to remove the 80, so 186,286,386,&486), the 80586 which was then known as the Pentium because intel couldn't trademark a number, and then the 80686 ABI came in with the pentium pro and then the 80786 coming out with the penitum 4, and then AMD came up with a way to do 64 bit registers and other fun stuff with x86, while Intel was off playing with itanium and so AMD64 came out, which some people call x86_64 in order to be brand neutral.
            Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 06-07-2012, 10:02 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by efikkan View Post
              Please stop using the terms 'x32' and 'x64', the correct terms are x86-32 and x86-64. I'm not sure if we can blame Microsoft for starting this nonsense, but please keep at least the Linux world free from this stupid terminology.
              It's x32. You didn't even bother reading the article. x86-32 is a totally different thing. There are three models now: x86, x86-64 and x32.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                It's x32. You didn't even bother reading the article. x86-32 is a totally different thing. There are three models now: x86, x86-64 and x32.
                dont forget ia64 (Itanium) :-)

                I wonder how specialist x32 will be. I'd expect an increasing number of people are running individual programs that can benefit from more than 4GB or ram. of the remainder how many will go for special options to get performance improvements. personally, scientific codes i run can use lots of RAM, so 4GB would be limiting.

                will it be possible to run preexisting x86-32 code on an x32 distro? or will these machines be in a similar position to x86-64 a few years ago.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ssam View Post
                  dont forget ia64 (Itanium) :-)
                  That's a different architecture. x32 is for x86-64 CPUs.

                  will it be possible to run preexisting x86-32 code on an x32 distro?
                  If it's multilib, yes. Just like now with x86-64 distros who also provide 32-bit libraries. Gentoo is not multilib, btw. It can only build x32 packages. (Just like Gentoo AMD64 can't build 32-bit packages.) A true multilib distro might not have those limitations.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    x32? What the heck is that. x16!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      That's a different architecture. x32 is for x86-64 CPUs.


                      If it's multilib, yes. Just like now with x86-64 distros who also provide 32-bit libraries. Gentoo is not multilib, btw. It can only build x32 packages. (Just like Gentoo AMD64 can't build 32-bit packages.) A true multilib distro might not have those limitations.
                      There are options for true multilib on Gentoo - it just isn't fully supported yet

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by hax0r View Post
                        x32? What the heck is that. x16!
                        While 4GB of memory is enough for most apps, 65kB is not.

                        :-P

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                          While 4GB of memory is enough for most apps, 65kB is not.

                          :-P
                          Heh, yeah but imagine all the code we could fit into the cpu caches if pointers are only 16-bit!!!

                          Also if I recall my DOS real-mode days you were able to address up to 1megabyte(!) of ram using segment registers, so no
                          lousy 64k here

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                            Heh, yeah but imagine all the code we could fit into the cpu caches if pointers are only 16-bit!!!

                            Also if I recall my DOS real-mode days you were able to address up to 1megabyte(!) of ram using segment registers, so no
                            lousy 64k here
                            DOS programs needed special support for that. We had to deal with "far" and "near" pointers, it was awful. God bless whoever introduced the flat memory model and the DOS extenders.

                            Edit:
                            There was also EMS memory (and the EMS memory emulator "emm386.exe" that came packaged with MS-DOS later on). Now those were the days. What a fscking circus that was :-P
                            Last edited by RealNC; 06-07-2012, 10:38 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                              There was also EMS memory (and the EMS memory emulator "emm386.exe" that came packaged with MS-DOS later on). Now those were the days. What a fscking circus that was :-P
                              I'm glad that by the time I started programming on the PC there were 32-bit dos extenders which gave you a flat memory model, must have been a pain before that. Also coming from the Amiga I immediately fell in love with the VESA linear framebuffer, god I hated the Amiga's bitplanes.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X