Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenMandriva Is Also Making Plans To Move Away From 32-Bit Support

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Is your Google broken good sir?
    It is, which is why I use DuckDuckGo.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
      At minimum, long longs need to be changed to longs. That's bare minimum. Almost -all- code needs to have some case modifications to get it to compile for both 32bit and 64bit x86. They -aren't- totally compatible.
      Yo that's peanuts, not "fixes requiring testing", unless you are doing bad shit with the code like manual bit swapping in the variable and such.

      Plus there is still -HUGE- amounts of x86 asm in production as we speak.
      I'm not sure why x86 ASM even matters in this discussion. That's again performance-critical code.

      You can't call something shit just because it uses the features of the architecture it was -designed- for you stupid idiot.
      I'm calling it shit because if doing cosmetic changes to variable declarations and such does cause issues it's indeed doing bad shit.

      The only place where that is ok is for performance-critical code, there everything goes, even bad shit, as you NEED performance.

      And now I'm convinced you've never written a single piece of software.
      That's not my job so I'm not really amazing but I can still hold my own against internet posers like you I guess.

      Variable sizes -DO- change. The worst of them is long long on 32bit is just a long on 64bit. Structures on 64bit x86 are -NOT- the same as structures on 32bit x86.
      https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...64-bit-windows

      tl;dr the only one that changes is the long from 32bit to 64, on Linux/Unix (and not on Windows). Long long still exists and is still 64bit in a 64bit system, be it Windows or Linux, so you don't need to touch that.

      Also, if you used platform-neutral integer type names as shown in the link you don't necessarily need to care about architecture or bitness changes.

      Also for the struct thing, see what other sane programmers actually do in another reply in this forum https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...29#post1108029
      Last edited by starshipeleven; 06-22-2019, 12:05 PM.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by duby229 View Post
        You need to define variable types to fit the data, and variable types are not the same size between 32bit and 64bit x86. Almost every software written by anyone, good or bad, needs case modifications to get them to compile on both 32bit and 64bit.
        You don't know shit, john snow.

        At most you are wasting more space with the Long as now you fit what originally was 32bit in a 64bit variable, everything else stays the same.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
          You don't know shit, john snow.

          At most you are wasting more space with the Long as now you fit what originally was 32bit in a 64bit variable, everything else stays the same.
          Except when recompilation introduces new security vulnerabilities: https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/11/17/...bit-platforms/

          We all know every crap "software developer" and their mom abuses 'int' everywhere like true retards.

          Comment


          • #55
            If we don't need backwards compatibility anymore we might as well drop x86 entirely, since we're stuck with it exactly because of the huge software library.

            Comment

            Working...
            X