From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9446BC69 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:46:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from capsaicin.mamane.lu (5.xs4all.nl [82.95.233.223]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7F4kExJ030045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:46:14 +0200 Received: from master by capsaicin.mamane.lu with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ILAlp-0006Af-DF; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:46:13 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:46:13 +0200 From: Lionel Elie Mamane To: skaller Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, Richard Jones Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Utilizing more than 4GB of memory in caml? Message-ID: <20070815044613.GA23673@capsaicin.mamane.lu> Mail-Followup-To: Lionel Elie Mamane , skaller , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, Richard Jones References: <20070814143423.GA29829@capsaicin.mamane.lu> <20070814161741.GA8221@capsaicin.mamane.lu> <20070814162559.GB1651@furbychan.cocan.org> <20070814165316.GA14379@capsaicin.mamane.lu> <1187140034.6101.3.camel@rosella.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1187140034.6101.3.camel@rosella.wigram> X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux X-Request-PGP: http://www.mamane.lu/openpgp/rsa_v4_4096.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46C28516.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0200,:01 0200,:01 cpuinfo:01 elephant:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml:02 utilizing:96 86,:04 dec:05 tue:06 tue:06 wed:06 lionel:07 On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:07:14AM +1000, skaller wrote: > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 18:53 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 06:28:38PM +0200, Koprowski, A. wrote: >>> Thank you so much for your detailed instructions and help! And >>> indeed you are completely right, it's not a x86, I don't know what >>> led me to believe it was. >> Oh, now you got me all curious. What architecture is it then? Sparc, >> maybe? > My bets on the Elephant are to "DEC Alpha" Adam confirmed (by emailing me the /proc/cpuinfo) that it is an amd64/x86-64 machine. So it is x86 after all :) -- Lionel