From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1416 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 0.9.3 released Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:29:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20120805182931.GK544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120803023633.GG544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <9251.50.0.229.11.1344128449.squirrel@lavabit.com> <501DEF70.6060900@barfooze.de> <40178.50.0.229.11.1344142584.squirrel@lavabit.com> <20120805052219.GH544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120806003112.4fd471cd@sibserver.ru> <20120806004336.1306937b@sibserver.ru> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344191346 1272 80.91.229.3 (5 Aug 2012 18:29:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 18:29:06 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1417-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Aug 05 20:29:07 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sy5Za-0002OQ-Px for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:29:06 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 29944 invoked by uid 550); 5 Aug 2012 18:29:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 29936 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2012 18:29:05 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120806004336.1306937b@sibserver.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1416 Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:43:36AM +0800, orc wrote: > Also, does x32 run on plain x86_64? If it does, then probably that It's a separate ABI in userspace (and has some new syscalls for situations where it's necessary to interface with the kernel using a structure that looks different in userspace due to containing pointers), but it runs on a standard 64-bit kernel that's new enough to have x32 support. It's possible to mix x32 and normal x86_64 ABI binaries on the same system, but for dynamic linking they need their own separate library paths. > large apps like Firefox can be compiled and run in that mode can have > benefits. If it is required that you must run only x32 kernel, then I > see no it's benefits currently. It will be much easier to run plain 32 > bits Firefox. Plain 32-bit apps are moderately slower due to not having access to 64-bit arithmetic and the really inefficient i386 ABI. I've heard the difference can be 5-20% depending on the application. Rich