Followup to: <20001112132328.C2366@athlon.random>
By author: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> I think it doesn't worth to break binary compatilibity at this late stage.
>
> > design such.) One issue: ideally you want to use 64-bit regs on AMD
> > Hammer for long longs, but then you leave out all legacy x68s. :(
>
> We can't in compatibilty mode because the rex regs are available _only_ in
> 64bit mode and even assuming the hardware would support that I would not
> recommend that since as you said that binary would not run anymore on any other
> x86 so causing pain. Recompiling a program with native x86-64 gcc 64bit (that
> uses the 64bit ABI) is the right way to go in that case (64bit mode uses 1
> 64bit register for long long as all other 64bit architectures of course).
>
Well, you *could* run REX32, but REX32 is not x86 (x86 code doesn't
run in REX32 mode, and REX32 code doesn't run on an x86.)
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:00:23 EST