From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Matt Thomas <jabbathespud@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,
Prasun Kapoor <prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D59E836.1060803@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84F21E9B-D512-40CD-97C3-29CABF7E42B6@3am-software.com>
On 02/14/2011 06:34 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 6:26 PM, David Daney wrote:
>
>> On 02/14/2011 06:14 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>>> 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).
>>>
>>
>> Also look at the new x86_64 ABI (See all those X32 psABI messages) that the Intel folks are actively working on. This proposal is very similar to what they are doing.
>
> untrue. N32 is closer to the X32 ABI since it is limited to 2GB.
>
It would only be 'untrue' if I had said it was *exactly like* the X32 thing.
Really n32 is, as you note, already quite similar to what X32 is trying
to do. My proposal is really for a small improvement to n32 to allow
doubling the size of the virtual address space to 4GB.
David Daney
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-15 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-14 20:29 David Daney
2011-02-15 0:15 ` Matt Thomas
2011-02-15 1:57 ` Paul Koning
2011-02-15 2:15 ` Joe Buck
2011-02-15 2:16 ` Paul Koning
2011-02-15 2:26 ` David Daney
2011-02-15 2:35 ` Matt Thomas
2011-02-15 2:43 ` David Daney [this message]
2011-02-15 17:33 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-02-15 18:15 ` David Daney
2011-02-15 2:22 ` David Daney
2011-02-15 2:33 ` Matt Thomas
2011-02-15 2:50 ` David Daney
2011-02-15 3:02 ` Matt Thomas
2011-02-15 17:41 ` David Daney
2011-02-15 17:48 ` Paul Koning
2011-02-15 17:56 ` Alexandre Oliva
2011-02-15 18:08 ` David Daney
2011-05-06 8:31 ` Alexandre Oliva
2011-05-06 17:00 ` David Daney
2011-02-18 1:02 ` David Daney
[not found] <4D5990A4.2050308__41923.1521235362$1297715435$gmane$org@caviumnetworks.com>
2011-02-21 19:45 ` Richard Sandiford
2011-05-09 14:27 ` Ralf Baechle
2011-05-09 17:47 ` David Daney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D59E836.1060803@caviumnetworks.com \
--to=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jabbathespud@gmail.com \
--cc=prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).