On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 02:55:37PM -0800, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: > > Dave Feustel <dfeustel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I have been running 64-bit OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and SUSE 11 for a while > > now. I expect that I will have no more problems with 64-bit F10 than > > I've had with the other 64-bit systems (which is to say, essentially > > none except for Maxima(caused by CLISP not working in 64-bit mode), so I > > am eager to take advantage of the extra (and bigger) registers available > > in 64-bit F10. > > I switched to fc4/64-bit (I think) from netbsd/64-bit and > openbsd/64-bit for the better apm support on the laptop, but I didn't > notice any great changes in how userland behaved. The BSD's seemed to > handle large address space programs a bit better when they started > swapping, but it wasn't enough of a problem to force me back. We are > talking about a program with a 13 gig working set and 4 gigs dram, but > with very good locality of reference. > > I'm surprised that clisp hasn't been hacked to run on Linux/64-bit. > Back when I cared about such things folks were always drooling over > large sparse address spaces and how it was going to help all sorts of > aspects of creating lisp objects. I'm surprised to see that now that > it is available nobody seems to care enough to actually make the code > work. 64-bit CLISP works on some platforms. Last I checked, OpenBSD did not have 64-bit CLISP. I think I remember that FreeBSD and SUSE11 do. I think to some degree it's a question of manpower and other resources. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
