Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: Ben Pfaff Newsgroups: comp.programming Subject: Re: 64 bit code Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:13:22 -0700 Lines: 22 Message-ID: <878vbb7mgd.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org> References: <87obkajd4h.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org> <6570efae8ed8640244cca902ffc2391d@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> Reply-To: blp@cs.stanford.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1350054802 6499 127.0.0.1 (12 Oct 2012 15:13:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zSm05e6GZ7YwUhjPPPdiqKxNxn8= Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:2329 Fritz Wuehler writes: > Ben Pfaff wrote: > >> "BartC" writes: >> >> > And the downside of 64-bit processors is *having* to use 64-bits for >> > things for which 32-bits was perfectly adequate. >> > >> > They can address over 4GB in one virtual address space, sure, but how >> > many programs actually need to do that? >> >> This is why Linux on x86 now has the "x32" ABI that runs in >> 64-bit mode but only uses 32 bits of address space. > > But I heard this doesn't really work Cite? I don't know of a reason why it shouldn't work. (But the x32 ABI is very new, so it's possible that some wrinkles are not yet ironed out.)