This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: Paul Koning <paul_koning at dell dot com>
Cc: Matt Thomas <jabbathespud at gmail dot com>, David Daney <ddaney at caviumnetworks dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Prasun Kapoor <prasun dot kapoor at caviumnetworks dot com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0800
Subject: Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
References: <4D5990A4.2050308@caviumnetworks.com> <B54F2940-13D7-4B64-AD1B-C81CC37BA857@3am-software.com> <139B199E-0408-4F99-878C-D7063D607497@dell.com>

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote:
> It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers.
> 
> This seems like a microscopically small market segment.  I can't see any sense in such an effort.

I remember the RHEL hugemem patch being a big deal for lots of their
customers, so a process could address the full 4GB instead of only 3GB
on a 32-bit machine.  If I recall correctly, upstream didn't want it
(get a 64-bit machine!) but lots of paying customers clamored for it.

(I personally don't have an opinion on whether it's worth bothering with).

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
  - From: Paul Koning
- Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
  - From: David Daney
- Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
  - From: David Daney
- Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
  - From: Matt Thomas
- Re: RFC: A new MIPS64 ABI
  - From: Paul Koning

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]