Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Svante Signell writes: > On Sat, 2023-05-13 at 19:01 +, jbra...@dismail.de wrote: >> May 13, 2023 1:46 PM, "Sergey Bugaev" wrote: >> >> > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:38 PM jbra...@dismail.de >> > wrote: >> > >> > > +Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the >> > > +32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. >> > >> > Is this really the plan? :( >> > >> > Has this been discussed anywhere? >> >> It is entirely possible that I made up the plan to drop 32-bit support. >> I thought I had seem someone say that was the plan... > > Why dropping 32-bit support? It does not make sense. We are not dropping 64-bit support. I assumed we were. I was incorrect. :) Check the hurd wiki faq "64 bit version". Samuel put some up to date info there. > > Thanks! > -- Joshua Branson Sent from the Hurd
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On Sat, 2023-05-13 at 19:01 +, jbra...@dismail.de wrote: > May 13, 2023 1:46 PM, "Sergey Bugaev" wrote: > > > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:38 PM jbra...@dismail.de > > wrote: > > > > > +Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the > > > +32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. > > > > Is this really the plan? :( > > > > Has this been discussed anywhere? > > It is entirely possible that I made up the plan to drop 32-bit support. > I thought I had seem someone say that was the plan... Why dropping 32-bit support? It does not make sense. Thanks!
Re: [PATCH] * faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info * open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Joshua Branson, le mer. 17 mai 2023 15:41:01 -0400, a ecrit: > Samuel Thibault writes: > > I have restored some pieces which are not outdated (we still do have > > 32-on-64 > > plans, and running 32bit on 64bit hardware is still something people > > have to understand possible). > > That is totally fine with me. May I ask why we might pursue supporting > 32-on-64 plans? Because the full 4GiB addressing space allows to link very large programs. > It would certainly push us to have portable RPC declarations. > I personally only want to run a 32-bit or 64-bit OS and not a > combination. I'm not talking about a combination. Samuel
Re: [PATCH] * faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info * open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Samuel Thibault writes: > Hello, > > I have restored some pieces which are not outdated (we still do have 32-on-64 > plans, and running 32bit on 64bit hardware is still something people > have to understand possible). That is totally fine with me. May I ask why we might pursue supporting 32-on-64 plans? It would certainly push us to have portable RPC declarations. I personally only want to run a 32-bit or 64-bit OS and not a combination. Can you help me see the value in a 32 bit userland on top of a 64 bit kernel? Just curious. Joshua Sent from my T43 Debian GNU/Hurd (real hardware) > > Thanks, > Samuel > > jbra...@dismail.de, le mer. 17 mai 2023 09:53:01 -0400, a ecrit: >> --- >> faq/64-bit.mdwn | 15 --- >> open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >> index 2e1278cb..9c8ecc9c 100644 >> --- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn >> +++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >> @@ -13,11 +13,12 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] >> >> [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] >> >> -There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but >> there >> -are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will notably >> permit >> -to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland >> -addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently >> -missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. >> +A 64-bit GNU/Hurd is coming soon! Hurd developers ported GNUMach to >> +64-bit some time ago. Then they started making significant progress >> +on the x86_64 userland port in Feb 2023. As of May 2023, the 64-bit >> +port works well enough to start all the essential Hurd servers and run >> +/bin/sh. We are currently building 64-bit packages. We plan on >> +supporting both a 32-bit and 64-bit Debian GNU/Hurd. However, there >> +is no plan to fix the year 2038 concern on a 32-bit system. >> + >> >> -That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it >> -just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. >> diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >> index 95761828..ca30ba64 100644 >> --- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >> +++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >> @@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] >> >> [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] >> >> -**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** >> - >> - * Fixing bugs :) >> - >> -**For pure 64bit support, we need to** >> +**For 64-bit support, we need to** >> >>* Fix bugs :) >>* bootstrap a distrib >> -- >> 2.32.0 >> >> -- Joshua Branson Sent from the Hurd
Re: [PATCH] * faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info * open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Hello, I have restored some pieces which are not outdated (we still do have 32-on-64 plans, and running 32bit on 64bit hardware is still something people have to understand possible). Thanks, Samuel jbra...@dismail.de, le mer. 17 mai 2023 09:53:01 -0400, a ecrit: > --- > faq/64-bit.mdwn | 15 --- > open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn > index 2e1278cb..9c8ecc9c 100644 > --- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn > +++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn > @@ -13,11 +13,12 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] > > [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] > > -There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there > -are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will notably > permit > -to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland > -addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently > -missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. > +A 64-bit GNU/Hurd is coming soon! Hurd developers ported GNUMach to > +64-bit some time ago. Then they started making significant progress > +on the x86_64 userland port in Feb 2023. As of May 2023, the 64-bit > +port works well enough to start all the essential Hurd servers and run > +/bin/sh. We are currently building 64-bit packages. We plan on > +supporting both a 32-bit and 64-bit Debian GNU/Hurd. However, there > +is no plan to fix the year 2038 concern on a 32-bit system. > + > > -That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it > -just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. > diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn > index 95761828..ca30ba64 100644 > --- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn > +++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn > @@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] > > [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] > > -**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** > - > - * Fixing bugs :) > - > -**For pure 64bit support, we need to** > +**For 64-bit support, we need to** > >* Fix bugs :) >* bootstrap a distrib > -- > 2.32.0 > > -- Samuel --- Pour une évaluation indépendante, transparente et rigoureuse ! Je soutiens la Commission d'Évaluation de l'Inria.
[PATCH] * faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info * open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
--- faq/64-bit.mdwn | 15 --- open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn index 2e1278cb..9c8ecc9c 100644 --- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn +++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn @@ -13,11 +13,12 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] -There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there -are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will notably permit -to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland -addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently -missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. +A 64-bit GNU/Hurd is coming soon! Hurd developers ported GNUMach to +64-bit some time ago. Then they started making significant progress +on the x86_64 userland port in Feb 2023. As of May 2023, the 64-bit +port works well enough to start all the essential Hurd servers and run +/bin/sh. We are currently building 64-bit packages. We plan on +supporting both a 32-bit and 64-bit Debian GNU/Hurd. However, there +is no plan to fix the year 2038 concern on a 32-bit system. + -That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it -just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn index 95761828..ca30ba64 100644 --- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn @@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] -**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** - - * Fixing bugs :) - -**For pure 64bit support, we need to** +**For 64-bit support, we need to** * Fix bugs :) * bootstrap a distrib -- 2.32.0
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Sergey Bugaev, le lun. 15 mai 2023 20:51:54 +0300, a ecrit: > store (= rumpdisk, not ramdisk) and nano? :) FI nano is now available as debian-amd64 package since a few days :) Samuel
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On May 15, 2023 7:51:54 PM GMT+02:00, Sergey Bugaev wrote: >On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 7:28 PM Guy-Fleury Iteriteka > wrote: >> Yes, i know that. I fallow you on mastodon. > >Then you get to see all the shitposts :D > All posts yes :) >> Also as you are good in writing you can documents how you created and launch >> it but when you finished your great work > >Ah, :blush: thank you for your kind words... I don't think I'm that good, I can tell you are really good especially with your analyse of code flow > >but I would surely love to write a blog post about the x86_64 port on >the official blog, along with everyone else who's involved in the port >(I'm certainly not the only one, and I don't mean to imply that I am). >Let's maybe do this once the system can run a persistent writable >store (= rumpdisk, not ramdisk) and nano? :) Yeah that will be great > >Sergey
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 7:28 PM Guy-Fleury Iteriteka wrote: > Yes, i know that. I fallow you on mastodon. Then you get to see all the shitposts :D > Also as you are good in writing you can documents how you created and launch > it but when you finished your great work Ah, :blush: thank you for your kind words... I don't think I'm that good, but I would surely love to write a blog post about the x86_64 port on the official blog, along with everyone else who's involved in the port (I'm certainly not the only one, and I don't mean to imply that I am). Let's maybe do this once the system can run a persistent writable store (= rumpdisk, not ramdisk) and nano? :) Sergey
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On May 15, 2023 6:45:40 PM GMT+02:00, Samuel Thibault wrote: >Guy-Fleury Iteriteka, le lun. 15 mai 2023 18:28:36 +0200, a ecrit: >> It should be interesting to use flavio's script. > >I don't think Flavio aims to bootstrap various libraries and whatnot :) > I meant to test just the hurd core would be perhaps easy >Samuel >
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Sergey Bugaev writes: > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 6:12 PM Guy-Fleury Iteriteka > wrote: >> On May 15, 2023 4:38:34 PM GMT+02:00, "jbra...@dismail.de" >> wrote: >> >+As of May 2023, the Hurd developers have a bootable 64-bit Debian >> Are sure a debian hurd boot?? > > I'm rather sure some patches required to get anything serious (e.g. > ext2fs) booting and working still only exist on my tablet, so this > must be talking about me. > > What I have here is not really a bootable Debian... it's a Frankenhurd > made partly out of Samuel's debs, partly built myself. There's not > much of a system, there are the Hurd servers, libraries, and /bin/sh > (and some utilities I'm calling from it like uname). This is in many > ways like booting Linux with init=/bin/sh, surely you wouldn't call > that 'booting Debian'? > > A more correct description would be: > > Work on the x8_64 userland port started in Feb 2023 [note: I'm > counting from my first x86_64 glibc patches, but surely there's been > related work before, e.g. Flavio's MIG changes]. As of May 2023, the > x86_64 port works well enough to start all the essential Hurd servers > and run /bin/sh. Ok thanks. I'll reword that to something that we can add to the wiki. > > (If you want more specific dates: I first got ld.so and libc.so > building on March 11th, the bootstrap task first ran all the way to > main on April 20th, and I got /bin/sh running on May12th). > > Sergey > -- Joshua Branson Sent from the Hurd
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Sergey Bugaev, le sam. 13 mai 2023 20:45:35 +0300, a ecrit: > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:38 PM jbra...@dismail.de wrote: > > +Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the > > +32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. > > Is this really the plan? :( No, but I don't think we want to plan to take the effort to fix the y2038 concern. Samuel
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Guy-Fleury Iteriteka, le lun. 15 mai 2023 18:28:36 +0200, a ecrit: > It should be interesting to use flavio's script. I don't think Flavio aims to bootstrap various libraries and whatnot :) Samuel
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On May 15, 2023 5:58:12 PM GMT+02:00, Sergey Bugaev wrote: >On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 6:12 PM Guy-Fleury Iteriteka > wrote: >> On May 15, 2023 4:38:34 PM GMT+02:00, "jbra...@dismail.de" >> wrote: >> >+As of May 2023, the Hurd developers have a bootable 64-bit Debian >> Are sure a debian hurd boot?? > >I'm rather sure some patches required to get anything serious (e.g. >ext2fs) booting and working still only exist on my tablet, so this >must be talking about me. > >What I have here is not really a bootable Debian... it's a Frankenhurd >made partly out of Samuel's debs, partly built myself. There's not >much of a system, there are the Hurd servers, libraries, and /bin/sh >(and some utilities I'm calling from it like uname). This is in many >ways like booting Linux with init=/bin/sh, surely you wouldn't call >that 'booting Debian'? Yes, i know that. I fallow you on mastodon. It should be interesting to use flavio's script. Also as you are good in writing you can documents how you created and launch it but when you finished your great work > >A more correct description would be: > >Work on the x8_64 userland port started in Feb 2023 [note: I'm >counting from my first x86_64 glibc patches, but surely there's been >related work before, e.g. Flavio's MIG changes]. As of May 2023, the >x86_64 port works well enough to start all the essential Hurd servers >and run /bin/sh. > >(If you want more specific dates: I first got ld.so and libc.so >building on March 11th, the bootstrap task first ran all the way to >main on April 20th, and I got /bin/sh running on May12th). > >Sergey >
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 6:12 PM Guy-Fleury Iteriteka wrote: > On May 15, 2023 4:38:34 PM GMT+02:00, "jbra...@dismail.de" > wrote: > >+As of May 2023, the Hurd developers have a bootable 64-bit Debian > Are sure a debian hurd boot?? I'm rather sure some patches required to get anything serious (e.g. ext2fs) booting and working still only exist on my tablet, so this must be talking about me. What I have here is not really a bootable Debian... it's a Frankenhurd made partly out of Samuel's debs, partly built myself. There's not much of a system, there are the Hurd servers, libraries, and /bin/sh (and some utilities I'm calling from it like uname). This is in many ways like booting Linux with init=/bin/sh, surely you wouldn't call that 'booting Debian'? A more correct description would be: Work on the x8_64 userland port started in Feb 2023 [note: I'm counting from my first x86_64 glibc patches, but surely there's been related work before, e.g. Flavio's MIG changes]. As of May 2023, the x86_64 port works well enough to start all the essential Hurd servers and run /bin/sh. (If you want more specific dates: I first got ld.so and libc.so building on March 11th, the bootstrap task first ran all the way to main on April 20th, and I got /bin/sh running on May12th). Sergey
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
Guy-Fleury Iteriteka writes: > On May 15, 2023 4:38:34 PM GMT+02:00, "jbra...@dismail.de" > wrote: >>--- >>I explained that the Hurd has initial 64-bit support, but I >>did not mention if the project plans to drop 32-bit >>support. Joshua >> >> faq/64-bit.mdwn | 10 +++--- >> open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >>diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >>index 2e1278cb..82513d25 100644 >>--- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn >>+++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >>@@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] >> >> [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] >> >>-There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there >>-are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will >> notably permit >>-to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland >>-addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently >>-missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. >>+As of May 2023, the Hurd developers have a bootable 64-bit Debian > Are sure a debian hurd boot?? I believe so. It is certainly not a Guix Hurd. :) >>+GNU/Hurd. The 64 bit kernel and userspace is mostly working, but bugs >>+still need to be fixed. >> >>-That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it >>-just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. >>diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >>index 95761828..ca30ba64 100644 >>--- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >>+++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >>@@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] >> >> [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] >> >>-**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** >>- >>- * Fixing bugs :) >>- >>-**For pure 64bit support, we need to** >>+**For 64-bit support, we need to** >> >> * Fix bugs :) >> * bootstrap a distrib > > Hi, > -- Joshua Branson Sent from the Hurd
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On May 15, 2023 4:38:34 PM GMT+02:00, "jbra...@dismail.de" wrote: >--- >I explained that the Hurd has initial 64-bit support, but I >did not mention if the project plans to drop 32-bit >support. Joshua > > faq/64-bit.mdwn | 10 +++--- > open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >index 2e1278cb..82513d25 100644 >--- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn >+++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >@@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] > > [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] > >-There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there >-are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will notably >permit >-to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland >-addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently >-missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. >+As of May 2023, the Hurd developers have a bootable 64-bit Debian Are sure a debian hurd boot?? >+GNU/Hurd. The 64 bit kernel and userspace is mostly working, but bugs >+still need to be fixed. > >-That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it >-just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. >diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >index 95761828..ca30ba64 100644 >--- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >+++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >@@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] > > [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] > >-**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** >- >- * Fixing bugs :) >- >-**For pure 64bit support, we need to** >+**For 64-bit support, we need to** > > * Fix bugs :) > * bootstrap a distrib Hi,
[PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
--- I explained that the Hurd has initial 64-bit support, but I did not mention if the project plans to drop 32-bit support. Joshua faq/64-bit.mdwn | 10 +++--- open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn index 2e1278cb..82513d25 100644 --- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn +++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn @@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] -There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there -are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will notably permit -to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland -addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently -missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. +As of May 2023, the Hurd developers have a bootable 64-bit Debian +GNU/Hurd. The 64 bit kernel and userspace is mostly working, but bugs +still need to be fixed. -That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it -just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn index 95761828..ca30ba64 100644 --- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn @@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] -**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** - - * Fixing bugs :) - -**For pure 64bit support, we need to** +**For 64-bit support, we need to** * Fix bugs :) * bootstrap a distrib -- 2.32.0
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On 14/05/2023 7:01 am, jbranso wrote: May 13, 2023 1:46 PM, "Sergey Bugaev" wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:38 PM jbranso wrote: +Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the +32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. Is this really the plan? :( Has this been discussed anywhere? It is entirely possible that I made up the plan to drop 32-bit support. I thought I had seem someone say that was the plan... Maybe you mistook the talk about one flavour of 64-bit Mach not having USER32 support for lack of 32-bit Mach. The two are not the same 32-bit. Amos
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
May 13, 2023 1:46 PM, "Sergey Bugaev" wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:38 PM jbra...@dismail.de wrote: > >> +Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the >> +32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. > > Is this really the plan? :( > > Has this been discussed anywhere? It is entirely possible that I made up the plan to drop 32-bit support. I thought I had seem someone say that was the plan... > > I understand that supporting multiple architectures can be a burden > and that we don't nearly have the manpower behind Linux, and I'm > certainly not signing up to support anything myself (nor do I have the > required expertise to...), but I absolutely agree with you that having > more diversity in supported/used configurations (not just one ISA, not > just Debian) would be beneficial. I've already seen SerenityOS drop > 32-bit support, and anyone involved can attest I was not happy about > it. > > Sergey
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:38 PM jbra...@dismail.de wrote: > +Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the > +32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. Is this really the plan? :( Has this been discussed anywhere? I understand that supporting multiple architectures can be a burden and that we don't nearly have the manpower behind Linux, and I'm certainly not signing up to support anything myself (nor do I have the required expertise to...), but I absolutely agree with you that having more diversity in supported/used configurations (not just one ISA, not just Debian) would be beneficial. I've already seen SerenityOS drop 32-bit support, and anyone involved can attest I was not happy about it. Sergey
Re: [PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
On May 13, 2023 6:38:15 PM GMT+02:00, "jbra...@dismail.de" wrote: >--- > faq/64-bit.mdwn | 11 --- > open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >index 2e1278cb..36afbbc3 100644 >--- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn >+++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >@@ -13,11 +13,8 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] > > [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] > >-There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there >-are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will notably >permit >-to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland >-addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently >-missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. >+Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the >+32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. I don't think anyone told the drop of 32 bit support >+ >+ > >-That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it >-just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. >diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >index 95761828..2cb77d90 100644 >--- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >+++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >@@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] > > [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] > >-**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** >- >- * Fixing bugs :) >- >-**For pure 64bit support, we need to** >+**For 64bit support, we need to** > > * Fix bugs :) > * bootstrap a distrib Hello,
[PATCH] faq/64-bit.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn: added up to date 64-bit porting info
--- faq/64-bit.mdwn | 11 --- open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn index 2e1278cb..36afbbc3 100644 --- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn +++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn @@ -13,11 +13,8 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] -There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there -are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will notably permit -to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland -addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently -missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. +Hurd developers are adding 64-bit support, and they plan to drop the +32-bit support, once the 64-bit support is deemed stable. + + -That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it -just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn index 95761828..2cb77d90 100644 --- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn @@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] -**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** - - * Fixing bugs :) - -**For pure 64bit support, we need to** +**For 64bit support, we need to** * Fix bugs :) * bootstrap a distrib -- 2.32.0
