Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:52:11 +0000 From: Anthony Naggs <tony@ubik.demon.co.uk> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: InformationWeek: Intel Sees A 32-Bit Hole In Itanium Message-ID: <iHaJEfAb0pq%2BIwcB@ubik.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20030426094135.GA970@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030426073334.GA85139@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030426094135.GA970@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20030426094135.GA970@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> writes >On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:33:34AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> IA-32 Execution Layer will take 32-bit code and convert it to 64-bit >> code that the Itanium processor can run, an Intel spokeswoman >> says. > >I wonder why the conversion if ia64 can already run ia32 applications. Quite slow, and Intel need to address AMD64's (perceived) lower risk migration for x86 users. AIUI native IA-32 execution doesn't support instruction extensions introduced on later Pentium models such as SSE, (since Pentium III). >Maybe Intel is planning to retire the ia32 execution unit early to >make room for caches and additional functional units? The IA-32 support takes little space at the moment, this would change somewhat if Intel were pushed into including a Xeon with 4 (say) way Hyper-Threading. So removing IA-32 wont yield much die space, but it means Intel don't have to keep taking more space to give IA-32 support comparable to their higher spec Pentium family. It also means Intel aren't committed to including IA-32 execution forever more. >> Is this something that FreeBSD can/should get involved with? > >I think it will be a waste of time. We already have ia32 support >that we probably don't maintain enough. Something else only adds >to the workload and it's not that we have people lining up :-) There is little information about the IA-32 Execution Layer as yet so one must speculate a little: Intel have committed a lot of development effort to this, and so wont to let it out of their control (or e.g. to let Transmeta see the source). So including IA-32 EL will require working through Non-Disclosure Agreements and around the need to only (mostly) have executable code to include in FreeBSD. Given all that, it seems like a very nice thing to have, (in the same way as 'Linux compatibility'), and a safeguard against the day Intel drop native IA-32 from Itaniums. Writing a translator from IA-32 to reasonably optimized IA-64 would be quite challenging. Porting Intel's IA-32 EL should not be too hard, given the opportunity. >I think we should allocate our spare resources to work on native >ia64 and native FreeBSD and make it a kick-ass server. If we get >bored after that, we can always take on the battle with i386 and >amd64 by adding compatibility layers and emulation fodder. > >Just my $0.02 If anyone has contacts at Intel perhaps they could try to find out if access to IA-32 EL for porting to FreeBSD would be possible. Tony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?iHaJEfAb0pq%2BIwcB>