[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Multiarch crazyiness



On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 14:13 +0100, Bill Crawford wrote:
> On 23/10/2007, Matthew Miller <mattdm mattdm org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:54:35PM +0200, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> > > > We prefer 32bit on those platforms.
> > > What if I have a x86_64 platform and nevertheless want only a 64-bits kernel
> > > and almost all 32-bits apps?
> >
> > Given the architecture constraints, why do you want that? Is this a real use
> > case that should be given serious consideration?
> 
> 32-bit code for most platforms is smaller *and* uses less memory
> (pointers at least being half the size). There is often a speed
> penalty too.

Right, and fewer instructions (for example, 5 instructions for a load
literal) but that doesn't mean there should be a codified rule - it
should be possible to have sensible enough packages that there is no
need for the installer or RPM to be too heavily hacked.

Jon.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]