AMD64 support for 2.0?


Matthew Dillon was considering completing AMD64 support for the next release, and it looks like he might be starting on it.

 Update: No, that’s disklabel work.  Thanks to ‘anonymous’ for indirectly pointing that out.

Posted by     Categories: Committed Code     4 Comments
4 Comments on AMD64 support for 2.0?

Respond | Trackback

  1. Gergo Szakal says:

    Would be cool, because most servers out there are either shipped with Opterons or Itanium 64′s (and usually contain more than 4 GB RAM). I can of course test this once it’s in a working stage.

  2. Joe "Floid" Kanowitz says:

    “Itanium 64s?”

    Intel’s marchitecture for AMD64-compatibles was “EM64T” (apparently “Intel 64,” now), shipped under the Xeon/Pentium #/Core brands, so I’m wondering if this means you’re actually using Itaniums (“IA-64″) in the wild. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em64t#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64 looks interesting for people like me who (for lack of anything interesting supporting 64-bit mode) haven’t been paying attention.

  3. Gergo Szakal says:

    I know the difference between the two, but somewhere I read about “pc64″ ports meaning x86_64 and ia64.

  4. justin says:

    Yeah, I think it was the time of all the header reorganization, when Matt created the platform, machine, machine_arch, etc. values.

    Shiningsilence.com uses a AMD processor (socket 754), so I’d be happy to have have support for it – not that I’ve noticed any CPU performance issues to date.

Respond

Comments

Comments