From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 27 18: 9:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D97115772; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:08:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@globalnet.co.uk) Received: from p89s12a06.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.220.138] helo=marder-1.) by sand2.global.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11KWz8-0005y4-00; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:08:46 +0100 Received: (from mark@localhost) by marder-1. (8.9.2/8.8.8) id CAA00485; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:01:23 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:01:23 +0100 From: Mark Ovens To: Sergey Babkin Cc: Thomas David Rivers , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, kdrobnac@mission.mvnc.edu Subject: Re: Intel Merced FreeBSD??? Message-ID: <19990828020123.C291@marder-1> References: <199908271229.IAA35280@lakes.dignus.com> <37C7312B.EE446A5C@bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i In-Reply-To: <37C7312B.EE446A5C@bellatlantic.net>; from Sergey Babkin on Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 08:45:31PM -0400 Organization: Total lack of Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 08:45:31PM -0400, Sergey Babkin wrote: > Thomas David Rivers wrote: > > > Microsoft needs a "business quality" version of Windows, > > which it claims is Windows/2000. That version of Windows > > could benefit from a 64-bit port, if for marketing only; but > > I don't think it would result in the volume of sales Intel > > is looking for. > > A funny thing is that Microsoft is porting essentially a > 32-bit version of Windows to Merced. All the programs for > Windows that want to use 64-bit support will have to be > modified because the MS compiler defines both int and long > as 32-bit. On the other hand the Unix compilers (at least > UnixWare and as far as I understood that's the common Unix > convention) provide a mode with 64-bit longs that gives > certain degree of 64-bit awareness just by recompiling. > marder-1:/usr/marko{57}% cat > size.c #include int main (void) { printf("short == %d\n", sizeof(short)); printf("int == %d\n", sizeof(int)); printf("long == %d\n", sizeof(long)); printf("long long == %d\n", sizeof(long long)); return(0); } ^D marder-1:/usr/marko{57}% cc !$ marder-1:/usr/marko{57}% ./a.out short == 2 int == 4 long == 4 long long == 8 marder-1:/usr/marko{57}% And the same is true on SunOS 4.1.x as well (although not 100% sure about "long long"). > > And - let me add - Intel has been down this path before > > (the i860) - and didn't see the success it wanted (although > > the i860 is popping up in some interesting places now...) > > Merced can run the x86 code. Not as fast as the native code > but I guess comparable to the Pentiums. > > > I suppose what this "rant" is all about is that I'm not > > convinced Merced is the "chip of the future" that we all > > need to be worried about. I'm taking a "wait-and-see" > > attitude. [Also, since Microsoft has been working > > closely with Intel regarding Merced for several years > > now, and has yet to do anything `serious' - I believe > > they are taking the same "wait-and-see" approach. Likely > > while telling Intel otherwise.] > > SCO and IBM with their Monterey-64 project are considering > Merced quite seriously. Actually, as far as I know, for > Monterey-64 the availability of the Merceds seems to be > the limiting factor now. > > -SB > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > -- STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. ________________________________________________________________ FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message