Re: A stupid 64bit question ... but ...
--- Parv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > wrote Guillaume R. thusly... > > > > 2005/12/5, David O'Brien > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:50:55PM -0400, > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > > I didn't realize that the newer Xeon's > were 64bit ... now, > > > > I've just built perl 5.8.7, and its > reporting: > > > > > > > > # perl -v > > > > This is perl, v5.8.7 built for > i386-freebsd-64int > ... > > > Perl won't be reporting a 64-bit capable > machine, when running a > > > 32-bit OS. Look in /var/run/dmesg for 'AMD > Features' to report > > > 'LM' (long mode). > > > > So why there is a 64int? We can suppose that > perl has seen that > > Marc's proc is a 64 one no? I asked that > cause I got a 64bits > > (amd) which run on a 32 bits mode and I got > oftenly such > > "i386-freebsd-64amd" > > By chance any of you built the Perl w/ > USE_64_BIT_INT option? See > "perl -V". 64 bit integers are a data type and have zippo to do with 64bit mode operations. Of course a 64bit processor can handle a 64bit integer in one operation whereas its more complicated on a 32bit CPU, but the entire point of a compiler or interpretor is to make such things transparent to the user. All the message means is that PERL is compiled to recognize the data type. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A stupid 64bit question ... but ...
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Parv wrote: in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Guillaume R. thusly... 2005/12/5, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:50:55PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: I didn't realize that the newer Xeon's were 64bit ... now, I've just built perl 5.8.7, and its reporting: # perl -v This is perl, v5.8.7 built for i386-freebsd-64int ... Perl won't be reporting a 64-bit capable machine, when running a 32-bit OS. Look in /var/run/dmesg for 'AMD Features' to report 'LM' (long mode). So why there is a 64int? We can suppose that perl has seen that Marc's proc is a 64 one no? I asked that cause I got a 64bits (amd) which run on a 32 bits mode and I got oftenly such "i386-freebsd-64amd" By chance any of you built the Perl w/ USE_64_BIT_INT option? See "perl -V". Actually, from what I can tell, that is the default, whereas you can disable it if you wish ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A stupid 64bit question ... but ...
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 01:10:40AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:13:50AM +0100, Guillaume R. wrote: > > 2005/12/5, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:50:55PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > > I recently bought a new Intel Xeon server, and when I put it together, I > > > > didn't realize that the newer Xeon's were 64bit ... now, I've just built > > > > perl 5.8.7, and its reporting: > > > > > > > > = > > > > # perl -v > > > > This is perl, v5.8.7 built for i386-freebsd-64int > > > .. > > > > I realize that this may be a stupid question, but am I correct in that > > > > *this* is a 64bit machine, and I should be enabling the AMD64 stuff on > > > > her? > > > > > > Perl won't be reporting a 64-bit capable machine, when running a 32-bit > > > OS. Look in /var/run/dmesg for 'AMD Features' to report 'LM' (long > > > mode). > > > > Lo > > So why there is a 64int? We can suppose that perl has seen that Marc's proc > > is a 64 one no? > > I asked that cause I got a 64bits (amd) which run on a 32 bits mode and I > > got oftenly such "i386-freebsd-64amd" > > ++ > > I'm not a perl expert - but maybe ints in perl actually are 64-bit. Just > because an x86 has only 32-bit wide regs, doesn't mean it cannot do > 64-bit math. :-) The '64int' may stand for 'intel', just as the '64amd' stands for amd :-) Kris pgpt6YfxDmq50.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A stupid 64bit question ... but ...
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Guillaume R. thusly... > > 2005/12/5, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:50:55PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > I didn't realize that the newer Xeon's were 64bit ... now, > > > I've just built perl 5.8.7, and its reporting: > > > > > > # perl -v > > > This is perl, v5.8.7 built for i386-freebsd-64int ... > > Perl won't be reporting a 64-bit capable machine, when running a > > 32-bit OS. Look in /var/run/dmesg for 'AMD Features' to report > > 'LM' (long mode). > > So why there is a 64int? We can suppose that perl has seen that > Marc's proc is a 64 one no? I asked that cause I got a 64bits > (amd) which run on a 32 bits mode and I got oftenly such > "i386-freebsd-64amd" By chance any of you built the Perl w/ USE_64_BIT_INT option? See "perl -V". - Parv -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A stupid 64bit question ... but ...
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:13:50AM +0100, Guillaume R. wrote: > 2005/12/5, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:50:55PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > I recently bought a new Intel Xeon server, and when I put it together, I > > > didn't realize that the newer Xeon's were 64bit ... now, I've just built > > > perl 5.8.7, and its reporting: > > > > > > = > > > # perl -v > > > This is perl, v5.8.7 built for i386-freebsd-64int > > .. > > > I realize that this may be a stupid question, but am I correct in that > > > *this* is a 64bit machine, and I should be enabling the AMD64 stuff on > > > her? > > > > Perl won't be reporting a 64-bit capable machine, when running a 32-bit > > OS. Look in /var/run/dmesg for 'AMD Features' to report 'LM' (long > > mode). > > Lo > So why there is a 64int? We can suppose that perl has seen that Marc's proc > is a 64 one no? > I asked that cause I got a 64bits (amd) which run on a 32 bits mode and I > got oftenly such "i386-freebsd-64amd" > ++ I'm not a perl expert - but maybe ints in perl actually are 64-bit. Just because an x86 has only 32-bit wide regs, doesn't mean it cannot do 64-bit math. :-) -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A stupid 64bit question ... but ...
2005/12/5, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:50:55PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > I recently bought a new Intel Xeon server, and when I put it together, I > > didn't realize that the newer Xeon's were 64bit ... now, I've just built > > perl 5.8.7, and its reporting: > > > > = > > # perl -v > > This is perl, v5.8.7 built for i386-freebsd-64int > .. > > I realize that this may be a stupid question, but am I correct in that > > *this* is a 64bit machine, and I should be enabling the AMD64 stuff on > > her? > > Perl won't be reporting a 64-bit capable machine, when running a 32-bit > OS. Look in /var/run/dmesg for 'AMD Features' to report 'LM' (long > mode). Lo So why there is a 64int? We can suppose that perl has seen that Marc's proc is a 64 one no? I asked that cause I got a 64bits (amd) which run on a 32 bits mode and I got oftenly such "i386-freebsd-64amd" ++ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
