From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=uR06MsL42=i9b3MALMm-6h+2QnEaCr_3VrP9q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=uR06MsL42=i9b3MALMm-6h+2QnEaCr_3VrP9q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:42:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+Edaq6Sx9MMvqtf6X7ATBYrKMERTYQ-NnUs-W@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [9fans] amd64 port
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 63fa9b22-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

ppc64 and amd64 support exists.  the ppc64 port is partial and is
available publically.  It is my understanding that the amd64 is
partial and available to those who ask.  Things which are missing are
devices and other bits to make it actually useful, but the core
changes for 64-bit support are in place and there are 64 bit
compilers.

      -eric


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
<vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while.
>
> to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even
> smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set.
>
> on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of
> other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit.
>
> i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug,
> beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as
> practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought
> a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more
> support).
>
> so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a
> higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware,
> parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i
> right?
>
> please pass your opinion.
>
> thanks
> dharani
>
>