x86-64 on i386 (was Re: Promoting i386 version over x86_64?)
paul at dishone.st
Mon Dec 14 17:18:47 UTC 2009
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Yet I could tell from the applications where performance is important.
> You reject my metric, I reject yours. Something of an impasse.
I'm not rejecting the performance metric at all.
> (It's also not too hard to make firefox use more than 3GB of virtual
> address space, though I admit you do need to work at it a little)
Only because it's obsolete. Multi-process browsers use a lot less
RAM per process.
> What was the point of this conversation again?
For those who can't sort by thread in their MUA: To ask that
32-userspace-on-64 be supported (it pretty much all works, except for
yum updating certain things, like the kernel), as there are definite
benefits to a 32-by-default userspace.
Some people chose to argue "But you should just run 64bit
completely", despite people already having described one reason to
32bit (memory usage). And from that we somehow got into a "x86_64
versus x86" thread of doom, with (IMHO) much missing of the general
Paul Jakma paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Where do you go to get anorexia?
-- Shelley Winters
More information about the fedora-devel-list