| |||||||||||||
Pettenò: Debunking x32 mythsPettenò: Debunking x32 mythsPosted Jun 26, 2012 5:04 UTC (Tue) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071)In reply to: Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths by Cyberax Parent article: Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths
The context probably got lost as it's several parent posts up. I wasn't referring to x32 in general being pointless, but to the development of an x32 kernel. I don't see the notion of a kernel that lives in the lower 4GB and uses mostly 32-bit pointers while using the native x64 mode to be particularly useful. I can maybe see x32 with a 64-bit kernel, which is the only thing the x32 folks ever proposed, being useful.
(Log in to post comments)
Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths Posted Jun 26, 2012 6:24 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Oh, yes, sorry.
Of course, I completely agree with you given the context of x32 kernel.
Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths Posted Jun 26, 2012 7:26 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link]
The hilarious part here is that I'm pretty sure that poster was simply talking about the kernel maintainers accepting the x32 personality (necessary for an x86_64 kernel to run x32 programs). :)
Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths Posted Jun 27, 2012 16:05 UTC (Wed) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
No, I actually think an x32 native kernel (or the equivalent for ARM64) would be an excellent idea for a large class of embedded systems - routers and file servers in particular. It would also be promising for use with hosted virtual machines, where the impact of running dozens of kernels starts to add up.
|
|||||||||||||