Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:02:04 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Kurt Lidl <lidl@pix.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding a MACHINE_ARCH note Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=HoTRBXnJXeVT7dDW-kHLpQCiB4PFya97P5_5oD5Xx6A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51E06B85.10109@pix.net> References: <F79E2F76-A234-499A-ABB7-1ABA62283E9D@FreeBSD.org> <51E06B85.10109@pix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12 July 2013 13:48, Kurt Lidl <lidl@pix.net> wrote: >> 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". Does this mean that netbooks with only 32 bit CPUs in them won't support NaCl? (Ie, they're only ever going to generate x32 code, and even 32 bit machines will still run 64 bit assembly..) -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=HoTRBXnJXeVT7dDW-kHLpQCiB4PFya97P5_5oD5Xx6A>