From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:28:14 -0400
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 64-Bit programming model.
References: <32a656c20509300431j6ab02b7cm7512019149d45a59@mail.gmail.com>
	<f344c691fd8960b43b2c77f308ed2ea3@terzarima.net>
	<32a656c20509301427v79705106ta3c169660f5d59b6@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Jim McKie" <jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <op.sxxvhc0oqv20vd@jmk.lra.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <32a656c20509301427v79705106ta3c169660f5d59b6@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Opera M2/8.50 (Win32, build 7700)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 92be5e18-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:27:49 -0400, Vester Thacker <vester.thacker@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> ...
> Sorry, I forgot to mention the article that led to my earlier
> question: http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html
> Perhaps it is just a propaganda piece, but I can't discern the differen=
ce.
> I suppose there are many valid reasons to use LLP64 over LP64. Anyhow,
> I am just being  curious and poking things with a stick rather than
> implying any criticism.
>
> --vester
>

That article dates from 1997-98. It says:

	... are best served if there is a single choice widespread in the
	emerging 64-bit systems. This removes a source of subtle errors in
	porting to a 64-bit environment, and encourages more rapid
	exploitation of the technology options.

I think that's backwards, you get sloppy in a monoculture.

--jim