Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:42:09 +0300
From:      Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com>
To:        Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>
Cc:        Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>,  John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Future of 32-bit platforms (including i386)
Message-ID:  <CAOgwaMsicnR0=sEVAXFHdRwA3WDB6gi_=hG7Q6N2kAD7KVUe3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6079003b-7df2-f3c2-f624-6fe39a1cf9c0@selasky.org>
References:  <aaa3e005-5f72-f422-56b1-932842379e15@FreeBSD.org> <671d3bf6-b207-e7c5-5282-4df317193db6@selasky.org> <A260039D-B51F-4593-9A85-8A5CF2818DEF@freebsd.org> <6079003b-7df2-f3c2-f624-6fe39a1cf9c0@selasky.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000cb135b05fa69d6d5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 8:45=E2=80=AFPM Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.or=
g> wrote:

> On 4/28/23 01:50, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> > On 28 Apr 2023, at 00:44, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/27/23 19:19, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>> For 13.0, i386 was demoted from Tier 1 to Tier 2.  In the announcemen=
t
> >>> of this for 13.0, the project committed to an update on i386's future
> >>> around the time of 14.0.  The announcement at the time suggested that
> >>> i386 would be supported less in 14.x than in 13.x.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This makes me think about all the issues about the "long" type in the
> past, and printf() and more, being caught when compiling TARGET_ARCH=3Di3=
86 .
> >>
> >> Maybe just put the following line of code somewhere central :-)
> >>
> >> _Static_assert(sizeof(long) =3D=3D 8);
> >>
> >> Will there ever be some kind of hybrid CPU systems?
> >>
> >> 4 cores AMD64, 4 cores AARCH64 and some virtual QEMU CPUs all running
> on the same system?
> >>
> >> I mean, the arm vs intel battle is not going to end soonish. And
> emulating CPUs is slow and waste electricity. Why not have one computer
> having both kind of CPUs, and one OS, and one harddisk? And figure out a
> common ABI allowing seamless task switching between them? I know there ar=
e
> some hard differences, but can't those be ironed out?
> >
> > I don=E2=80=99t know where to start with this other than to give an emp=
hatic no
> to almost all of what you said, or at least the bits for which meaning ca=
n
> be extracted. Regardless, this is not the place for such pie-in-the-sky
> discussions; if you want to theorise about weird and wacky computer
> architectures then please take it elsewhere.
> >
>
> Hi Jess,
>
> I'd like to know why you think this is a wacky idea, to have a super-set
> computer architecture, where each CPU can run the full instruction set
> of both ARM64 and AARCH64 at the same time.
>
> You have an open invitation for a video call on FaceBook or whatever you
> prefer to talk about this. Send me something off-list.
>
> --HPS
>
>
It is not necessary to go to a very far distant future .

Assume you have a cluster of boards with different CPUs .
Then schedule execution of your programs with respect to the required CPU
on this cluster .

Is this possible with FreeBSD ?
Is it a good or bad idea to have such a facility ?




Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

--000000000000cb135b05fa69d6d5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"fon=
t-family:monospace;font-size:large"><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 8:45=
=E2=80=AFPM Hans Petter Selasky &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:hps@selasky.org">hps@=
selasky.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">On 4/28/23 01:50, Jessica Clarke wrote:<br>
&gt; On 28 Apr 2023, at 00:44, Hans Petter Selasky &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:hp=
s@selasky.org" target=3D"_blank">hps@selasky.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On 4/27/23 19:19, John Baldwin wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; For 13.0, i386 was demoted from Tier 1 to Tier 2.=C2=A0 In the=
 announcement<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; of this for 13.0, the project committed to an update on i386&#=
39;s future<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; around the time of 14.0.=C2=A0 The announcement at the time su=
ggested that<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; i386 would be supported less in 14.x than in 13.x.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Hi,<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; This makes me think about all the issues about the &quot;long&quot=
; type in the past, and printf() and more, being caught when compiling TARG=
ET_ARCH=3Di386 .<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Maybe just put the following line of code somewhere central :-)<br=
>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; _Static_assert(sizeof(long) =3D=3D 8);<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Will there ever be some kind of hybrid CPU systems?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 4 cores AMD64, 4 cores AARCH64 and some virtual QEMU CPUs all runn=
ing on the same system?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I mean, the arm vs intel battle is not going to end soonish. And e=
mulating CPUs is slow and waste electricity. Why not have one computer havi=
ng both kind of CPUs, and one OS, and one harddisk? And figure out a common=
 ABI allowing seamless task switching between them? I know there are some h=
ard differences, but can&#39;t those be ironed out?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I don=E2=80=99t know where to start with this other than to give an em=
phatic no to almost all of what you said, or at least the bits for which me=
aning can be extracted. Regardless, this is not the place for such pie-in-t=
he-sky discussions; if you want to theorise about weird and wacky computer =
architectures then please take it elsewhere.<br>
&gt; <br>
<br>
Hi Jess,<br>
<br>
I&#39;d like to know why you think this is a wacky idea, to have a super-se=
t <br>
computer architecture, where each CPU can run the full instruction set <br>
of both ARM64 and AARCH64 at the same time.<br>
<br>
You have an open invitation for a video call on FaceBook or whatever you <b=
r>
prefer to talk about this. Send me something off-list.<br>
<br>
--HPS<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style=3D"font-family:monospace;fo=
nt-size:large" class=3D"gmail_default">It is not necessary to go to a very =
far distant future .<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:monospace;font-size=
:large" class=3D"gmail_default"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:monospa=
ce;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_default">Assume you have a cluster of bo=
ards with different CPUs .</div><div style=3D"font-family:monospace;font-si=
ze:large" class=3D"gmail_default">Then schedule execution of your programs =
with respect to the required CPU on this cluster .</div><div style=3D"font-=
family:monospace;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_default"><br></div><div st=
yle=3D"font-family:monospace;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_default">Is th=
is possible with FreeBSD ?</div><div style=3D"font-family:monospace;font-si=
ze:large" class=3D"gmail_default">Is it a good or bad idea to have such a f=
acility ?</div><div style=3D"font-family:monospace;font-size:large" class=
=3D"gmail_default"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:monospace;font-size:=
large" class=3D"gmail_default"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:monospac=
e;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_default"><br></div><div style=3D"font-fam=
ily:monospace;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_default"><br></div><div style=
=3D"font-family:monospace;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_default">Mehmet E=
rol Sanliturk<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:monospace;font-size:large"=
 class=3D"gmail_default"></div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div></=
div></div>

--000000000000cb135b05fa69d6d5--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMsicnR0=sEVAXFHdRwA3WDB6gi_=hG7Q6N2kAD7KVUe3Q>