From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 21 18:59:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCAF16A4CE for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:59:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail22.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail22.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.133.160]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7E643D5E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:59:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229]) iBLIxEgo006939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:59:15 +1100 Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])iBLIxExP003756; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:59:14 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from pjeremy@localhost)iBLIxEBS003755; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:59:14 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from pjeremy) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:59:14 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: Pete French Message-ID: <20041221185914.GL79646@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20041219181710.062cde10@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will there be a 5.3.1? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:59:17 -0000 On Tue, 2004-Dec-21 11:17:22 +0000, Pete French wrote: >> I'd really like to see support for the AMD64 architecture become rock solid, >> too, because 64 bit Athlons are starting to sell at great prices. > >Sadly I went back to running i386 on my AMD64's - not because of problems >with FreeBSD, but because of problems with ports. It seems that theres a lot >of code out there assuming sizeof(int) = sizeof(long). Which is a shame (and >also depresses me after living through identical problems with the 16->32 >switch. You might have thought people would heave learnt) One of the benefits of the AMD64 is supposed to the its ability to run a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit applications. I recall this being a major problem when I first started working on DEC Alpha's about 6 years ago but haven't noticed it as much recently. (Though one project I'm working on started life on PDP-11's and whilst it's been ported to ILP32, does not like I32LP64). One problem is that Unix first became popular (outside academia) with the advent of the 32-bit workstations and then took off with the rise of Linux on 32-bit i386. Lots of Unix code has never seen an environment were sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) isn't true. Hopefully things will improve in the future. -- Peter Jeremy