From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBF8BB9C for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:52:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jAULq4sr026081 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:52:04 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA21496 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:52:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from cenn.mc.mpls.visi.com (cenn.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.9]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jAULq2AQ026078 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:52:03 +0100 Received: from [192.168.42.2] (bhurt.dsl.visi.com [208.42.141.66]) by cenn.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B23847C; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:52:01 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:57:50 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Hurt X-X-Sender: bhurt@localhost.localdomain To: David Brown Cc: Alessandro Baretta , Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Support for 64bit Pentium? In-Reply-To: <1133376550.15904.2.camel@shadowdb.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: References: <438DF00B.9030700@barettadeit.com> <1133376550.15904.2.camel@shadowdb.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 438E1F04.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 438E1F02.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 baretta:01 variants:01 ocamlopt:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 essentially:01 alessandro:03 describing:03 brian:04 brian:04 bits:04 quite:06 mainstream:06 tries:06 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, David Brown wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 19:31 +0100, Alessandro Baretta wrote: >> Shortly, most mainstream microprocessors will ship in 64 bit variants. I know >> that ocamlopt supports AMD64, but what about EM64T, or whatever the new Intel >> hype is called? > > They are identical, at least from a user-program perspective. Intel > tries very hard to downplay this, since they've essentially reversed > positions, and have themselves cloned AMD's features. True story: Intel screwed up when it shipped it's first copies of the documentation describing EMT64 technology. See, the 64-bit Pentiums only have 36 physical address lines, while the Opterons have 40 (this makes a difference in the total amount of real memory that they can address). The first generation of EMT64 manuals Intel shipped out said the chips had 40 physical address bits. Hey, Intel- you didn't quite finish filing the serial numbers off there... Seriously, if it works on one, it'll work on the other (barring SSE3 requirements). Brian