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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #81554

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

No.

You are AGAIN assuming what I am talking about.

I know the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit processor.

If you're not going to answer my question, kindly don't answer at all.

--J

> On Jan 12, 2024, at 21:40, YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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

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