Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 110 posts

Re: Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

#11

Post by comex »

treeform wrote: post #10
bryanlarsen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's the i386 architecture, which is still well supported AFAICT. x86_32 is a funny architecture that requires 64 bit chips but uses 32 bit pointers. http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-x32-ABI-get...

Your comment should be the top comment. I had no clue i386 and x86_32 where different. I though the article was saying 32bit linux is broken.... but no some strange "alternative" mode on linux is broken.... who cares.

The comment is wrong. It is about i386.

Re: Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

#12

Post by heavyset_go »

peteradio wrote: post #7
heavyset_go wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were 32-bit netbooks being sold the last time I looked in 2015.

Jesus was closer to dinosaur times than we are to 2015.

Casual computer users don't buy new computers each year. Pretty sure set top boxes and routers with 32-bit x86 processors have been sold since then, too.

Re: Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

#15

Post by rurban »

comex wrote: post #8
bryanlarsen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's the i386 architecture, which is still well supported AFAICT. x86_32 is a funny architecture that requires 64 bit chips but uses 32 bit pointers. http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-x32-ABI-get...

No, that’s “x32”. “x86_32” is not an official name for anything, but based on the contents of the post, I believe Andy Lutomirski is using it to refer to 32-bit x86, aka i386.

And I believe he meant i686. Latest Intel CPU's with 32bit pointers.

Re: Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

#16

Post by cptskippy »

jdsully wrote: post #5

I remember being an early adopter of 64-bit Linux with my Athlon64 back in the day. Lots of stuff was broken and I got a lot of debate on whether it was any faster or worthwhile at all. It's really cool to see the technology curve go full circle.

Completely off topic but...

Althlon64 was a swift kick in the nuts for Intel, but AMD really didn't followup until Ryzen. I wonder if they're going to stick around and fight this time.

Re: Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

#17

Post by the8472 »

rurban wrote: post #15
comex wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s “x32”. “x86_32” is not an official name for anything, but based on the contents of the post, I believe Andy Lutomirski is using it to refer to 32-bit x86, aka i386.

And I believe he meant i686. Latest Intel CPU's with 32bit pointers.

x86-64 procesors can generally be run in IA32 compatibility mode. And intel still makes some IA32-only chips for embedded.

Re: Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

#19

Post by geofft »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #6
human_banana wrote: post #3

Maybe because nobody uses 32-bit x86 anymore?

No, that's the i386 architecture, which is still well supported AFAICT. x86_32 is a funny architecture that requires 64 bit chips but uses 32 bit pointers. http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-x32-ABI-get...

This post is about i386 / x86_32. What you're referring to is "x32," a different thing entirely, which uses the x86-64 instruction set. You can tell this post is not about "x32" because it talks about "segments, gates, and other delights from the i386 era," which don't exist on the x86-64 architecture regardless of how long your pointers are, and it says things are "fine on a 64-bit kernel" (x32 uses a 64-bit kernel, it's a userspace ABI only).

Re: Lots of bugs in 32-bit x86 Linux entry code

#20

Post by geofft »

Relatedly, Ubuntu no longer builds for i386 as a complete architecture: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2019...

They are still building i386 packages for use on 64-bit kernels, for the sake of precompiled 32-bit software (games etc). That's scenario B from Simon McVittie's reply in this thread, and it sounds like that's not affected.

Post reply on HN