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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #81541

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

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.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 12:54 PM <rhys@neoquasar.org> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2024 10:11
> *To:* rhys@neoquasar.org
> *Cc:* noloader@gmail.com; debian-kernel@lists.debian.org;
> debian-arm@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org;
> debian-release@lists.debian.org
> *Subject:* Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures
>
> <rhys@neoquasar.org> 于2024年1月12日周五 23:59写道：
> >
> > Keeping in mind that I am new to this arena...
> >
> > I have some Intel systems - both 64-bit and 32-bit - that I might be
> able to use as build platforms.
> >
>
> I guess all of your hardwares are 64bit. You setup different OS on them.
>
> No. I have multiple 32-bit systems, one of which is Intel.
>
> > What does the Debian team need from me to be able to use these systems?
> >
>
> It's not about performance of hardware. It is about some limitation of
> 32bit.
> 2 examples for it:
>    1. if we use 32bit value for time, it will overflow in 2038, then
> your time will be shown as 1900.
>        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
>    2. A single process (or maybe APP, not precisely), can only use UP
> to 4GiB RAM.
>        In fact on most system the value is less than 4GiB:
>           on intel32, it is 3GiB
>           on mips32, it is 2GiB
>        But currently, it is not enough, for example, when we build a
> big APP, it will need much more RAM.
>        The RAM does install in your Rack, but you can NOT use it.
>       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier
>
> > I can't guarantee they'll be FAST, but I'll do what I can to make them
> EFFECTIVE.
> >
>
> If you are really need 32bit system. Maybe you can say out why you
> *REALLY* need it.
> For most users, the suggestion is: upgrade to 64bit.
>
>
> That's not at all what I was asking or talking about.
>
> --J
>

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