On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 02:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > AFAIK, not building a ppc64 version should not be a "bug", indeed it > likely should be the default. 32-bit code runs faster than 64-bit code > on that arch, and so the only reason to build 64-bit is if you really > need access to more than 4Gb of address space. There are apps that need > that, but not all that many. > > So my position is that libraries should generally be built in both > flavors (since they can't predict which flavor of executable might want > them) but applications should be built as 32-bit unless there's a good > reason why they need a 64-bit address space. Certainly I agree that we should _ship_ no executables in 64-bit mode other than the ones which actually need it, like perhaps gdb. However, we currently need a pure 64-bit buildroot for building the 64-bit stuff, so in practice we'll need to build _some_ 64-bit packages that don't get shipped. It might well be easier just to build them all. > (If you ask me, the interesting question here is why the other arches > don't behave the same way. Any reasonably competent hardware design > should have the property that doubling the bit-volume of traffic to > main memory has a penalty...) We do it the other way round on i386 because i386 _isn't_ something we could consider a "reasonably competent" design these days. It has too few registers, and the benefit of switching to x86_64 mode and actually having a sensible number of registers is more than sufficient to offset the bloat of 64-bit code. -- dwmw2 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
