Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

From	YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>
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	<HVDbX-2IwX-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> <HVCSB-2Iqp-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> 于2024年1月13日周六 11:27写道：
>
> 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?
>
You are yet another person who is confused by the name "i386" vs "amd64".
AMD64 is just the named due to that X86 is extended to X86-64 by AMD *first*.
It means that "Intel 64" or "EM64T" is almost same with "AMD64".

So, you, the Intel CPU user,  should use "AMD64", if you don't clearly
know that your
Intel CPU is 32bit only.

For more clear, for Debian, "AMD64" is equal to X86-64.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

-- 
YunQiang Su

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