Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:48:05 -0400 From: Kurt Lidl <lidl@pix.net> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding a MACHINE_ARCH note Message-ID: <51E06B85.10109@pix.net> In-Reply-To: <F79E2F76-A234-499A-ABB7-1ABA62283E9D@FreeBSD.org> References: <F79E2F76-A234-499A-ABB7-1ABA62283E9D@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 03:08, Peter Wemm <peter at wemm.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote: >>> ... boy I'd like to see this particular x86 hiccup fixed before this >>> stuff is mainstream. >> >> I'm not entirely sure how much support there is behind "x32". I don't >> know if its much more than an academic curiosity or if there's real >> demand for it. > > It seems to be driven by Intel and Google. The idea is that for some > applications (or maybe even most :), an ILP32 model will perform better. I believe that Google's NaCl (native client) plugins for Chrome all use the "x32" ABI. The NaCl stuff uses this, along with a "safe" code generation path to implement part of the sandboxing for Chrome plugins. Ultimately, to have a fully functioning Chrome (with plugins) on amd64 hosts, we'll want to support "x32". -Kurt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51E06B85.10109>