Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #81547

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

From rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.devel.release, linux.debian.kernel, linux.debian.devel
Subject Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures
Date 2024-01-13 04:50 +0100
Message-ID <HVCSB-2Iqp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <HVsqd-2C7o-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <HVtFD-2CMv-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <HVu8F-2Dcd-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Let me try again, following up on the previous thread, but removing most of the irrelevant history.

If I have a 32-bit Intel system that is currently supported on bookworm (currently running bullseye, but I can upgrade it), is that of use to anyone as a native build platform for 32-bit binary packages for Debian?

--J

> On Jan 12, 2024, at 12:06, Alan Corey <alan01346@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Are you forgetting that 64 bit is slower?  In the arm world where it's easily switchable 64 bit is pokey when you don't need it.
>

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 10:50 +0100
  Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> - 2024-01-11 10:50 +0100
    Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 11:50 +0100
      Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 12:50 +0100
        Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 18:40 +0100
          Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 19:50 +0100
      Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-01-11 17:10 +0100
        Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 17:20 +0100
          Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Alan Corey <alan01346@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 19:30 +0100
            Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 04:50 +0100
              Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> - 2024-01-13 04:50 +0100
                Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 14:20 +0100
                Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 17:00 +0100
                Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 20:20 +0100
                Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> - 2024-01-13 21:10 +0100
              Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 14:30 +0100
    Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-12 23:40 +0100
      Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> - 2024-01-13 17:40 +0100
        Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 18:00 +0100
  Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 11:50 +0100
  gcc displaying bullshit allocation numbers? (was: Re: Ability to  further support 32bit architectures) Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 18:00 +0100

csiph-web