This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012
On 5/18/2012 4:37 PM, JonY wrote:
If so then they were wrong.
I believe the same was said when transitioning from 16bit to 32bit.
OK, OK. Tack on "for most applications" to my statement (I thought it
Those are just pointers, instructions do not necessary double in size,
I was under the impression that the instruction size matches the natural
word size of the machine. Therefore they would be 64 bit instructions.
we are talking about CISC CPUs after all, besides, nearly all registers in 64bit long mode doubled in size, not to mention the number of them increased, see AMD64 GPRs compared to x86 GPRs.
I believe my AMD64 is considered a RISC computer. According to
http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=788 "The K5 and K6 series are
internally a highly parallel RISC processor using an x86 decoding
front-end". And according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set: "In some architectures,
notably most reduced instruction set computers (RISC), instructions are
a fixed length, typically corresponding with that architecture's word
size". Things might be different now. I really don't keep up with
Besides, who cares that much about the image size these days? We
don't, within reason.
I, for one, do. These larger binary images need to fit in memory and
reserve swap space and virtual memory. I see virtual memory foot prints
in the hundreds of megs if not gigs. Chrome on my Ubuntu box regularly
takes 1-2 gig of virtual memory and hundreds of megs of real memory. If
you run many things like I do you quickly get to the point where your
swapping and thrashing and waiting for the OS to manage many, many more
fragments of memory. All my systems have 4 gig (XP at work, a couple of
Ubuntu boxes at home) and they all come under memory pressure at times.
Small is beautiful.
No modern OS actually loaded the entire executable into memory, not
since the MSDOS days, they are mapped, like pagefiles.
And why not what? Your question doesn't make sense.
All of this is irrelevant to the request to make say /bin/ls 64 bit.
And why not?
Even if the rest of the system has transitioned to 64bit?
Even if the rest transitioned what? Your question doesn't make sense again.
If you didn't know, GCC does win64 applications fine. The hard part for porting Cygwin to win64 is the LP64 vs LLP64 issue. The former is used by newlib, it is not easy to transition to Win64 LLP64.
I still don't understand what having a 64 bit version of ls or grep will
do for ya...
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
I've taken a vow of poverty -- to annoy me, send money
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple