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

Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space below 0x00000000`7ffe0000?

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 65 posts

Re: Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space below 0x00000000`7ffe0000?

#6

Post by jasoneckert »

alexklarjr wrote: post #3
aebtebeten wrote: post #2

tl;dr several reasons, the most specific of which is "to keep linker relocs simple"

…on a long dead architecture.

I still have Windows 2000 installed on a Digital Ultimate Workstation (2x Alpha 21164). I turn it on every few years when I need a nostalgia kick ;-)

Re: Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space below 0x00000000`7ffe0000?

#8

Post by ourmandave »

alexklarjr wrote: post #3
aebtebeten wrote: post #2

tl;dr several reasons, the most specific of which is "to keep linker relocs simple"

…on a long dead architecture.

Chen is the poster boy for backwards compat.

They used to work very hard to make sure updates didn't break popular programs that used undocumented hacks.

Re: Why doesn’t Windows use 64-bit virtual address space below 0x00000000`7ffe0000?

#9

Post by avianlyric »

muststopmyths wrote: post #5
herpderperator wrote: post #4

What does the ` mean?

That’s the convention on windows for denoting 64-bit addresses, separating the two 32bit parts with the backtick. Don’t recall why now.

I assume it just makes the address easier to read. I imagine most programs don’t deal with address spaces larger than 4GB, so being able to quickly identify the lower bytes of the address when physically looking at a memory address is probably quite handy.
Post reply on HN