Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:22:24 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Anthony Naggs <tony@ubik.demon.co.uk> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: IA32 execution layer on Itanium (was: InformationWeek: Intel Sees A 32-Bit Hole In Itanium) Message-ID: <xzpn0id472n.fsf_-_@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <iHaJEfAb0pq%2BIwcB@ubik.demon.co.uk> (Anthony Naggs's message of "Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:52:11 %2B0000") References: <20030426073334.GA85139@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030426094135.GA970@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <iHaJEfAb0pq%2BIwcB@ubik.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Naggs <tony@ubik.demon.co.uk> writes: > 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. I don't see how that is an issue for us. We've never worried about being able to run IA32 code on Alpha or Sparc chips. Just because Itanium chips *can* run IA32 code doesn't mean we *want* to or *need* to any more than we do on chips that can't. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpn0id472n.fsf_-_>