From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-70119-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 28215 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2011 02:15:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 28199 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2011 02:15:04 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from us02smtp2.synopsys.com (HELO alvesta.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.77)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:14:57 +0000
Received: from maiden.synopsys.com (maiden.synopsys.com [146.225.100.170])	by alvesta.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B442062;	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:14:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godel.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by maiden.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA09982;	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godel.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by godel.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id p1F2Etnx001840;	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:14:55 -0800
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)	by godel.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id p1F2Ektk001839;	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:15:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Paul Koning <paul_koning@dell.com>
Cc: Matt Thomas <jabbathespud@gmail.com>,        David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>, GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,        binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,        Prasun Kapoor <prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
Message-ID: <20110215021446.GE29824@synopsys.com>
References: <4D5990A4.2050308@caviumnetworks.com> <B54F2940-13D7-4B64-AD1B-C81CC37BA857@3am-software.com> <139B199E-0408-4F99-878C-D7063D607497@dell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <139B199E-0408-4F99-878C-D7063D607497@dell.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote:
> It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers.
> 
> This seems like a microscopically small market segment.  I can't see any sense in such an effort.

I remember the RHEL hugemem patch being a big deal for lots of their
customers, so a process could address the full 4GB instead of only 3GB
on a 32-bit machine.  If I recall correctly, upstream didn't want it
(get a 64-bit machine!) but lots of paying customers clamored for it.

(I personally don't have an opinion on whether it's worth bothering with).