7 ms·

Maybe because nobody uses 32-bit x86 anymore?

by human_banana 7y ago

heavyset_go 7y ago
There were 32-bit netbooks being sold the last time I looked in 2015.
- peteradio 7y ago
  Jesus was closer to dinosaur times than we are to 2015.
  - grmn 7y ago
    Are you Him?
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    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.
- gdxhyrd 7y ago
  Sure, but the ones that pay the bills are servers and companies which don't care one bit about i386.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    Agreed, however open source has always relied on enthusiasts for consumer-grade hardware support.
- opencl 7y ago
  The really fun part was when they launched the first 64 bit Atom CPUs (Bay Trail) and then a bunch of them got shipped with only 32 bit UEFI and cannot boot in 64 bit mode.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    They have to _boot_ with a 32-bit UEFI bootloader, but can run a 64-bit kernel and userland. Fedora Linux even allows for this while keeping secure boot on; Debian supports it as well but the interaction with secure boot is buggy, so you need to turn it off. Not sure about other distros, however.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    Early 64-bit Intel Macs also shipped with a 32-bit UEFI limitation, but they were able to boot into a 64-bit system.
- makomk 7y ago
  Unfortunately, upstream doesn't really notice if 32-bit x86 breaks. This isn't just a kernel problem; glibc managed to push out a release back in 2017 that broke memchr on 32-bit Atom in a way that tended to cause programs calling it to segfault. It turns out that amongst a few other things, including Python, the glibc build process itself relies on memchr working... I don't think they actually tested the code path in question after modifying it.
  - exikyut 7y ago
    Of course it was tested [on the developers' x86_64 laptop(s)]!
bryanlarsen 7y ago
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-gets-around-64-bit-drawbacks-1342061.html http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-x32-ABI-get...
- comex 7y ago
  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.
  - rurban 7y ago
    And I believe he meant i686. Latest Intel CPU's with 32bit pointers.
    - the8472 7y ago
      x86-64 procesors can generally be run in IA32 compatibility mode. And intel still makes some IA32-only chips for embedded.
- treeform 7y ago
  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.
  - comex 7y ago
    The comment is wrong. It is about i386.
- geofft 7y ago
  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).
thrower123 7y ago
If only... I have been hoping for a native x64 version of Visual Studio for almost a decade, and signs do not look good for that ever coming to fruition. As it is, loading up solutions that consume nearly 2GB of RAM are still bringing the IDE to its knees and making it thrash and page.
mike_hock 7y ago
My old Atom laptops still run perfectly fine. Thanks, Debian.

Maybe because nobody uses 32-bit x86 anymore?

heavyset_go 7y ago

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

peteradio 7y ago
Jesus was closer to dinosaur times than we are to 2015.
- grmn 7y ago
  Are you Him?
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  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.
gdxhyrd 7y ago
Sure, but the ones that pay the bills are servers and companies which don't care one bit about i386.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  Agreed, however open source has always relied on enthusiasts for consumer-grade hardware support.
opencl 7y ago
The really fun part was when they launched the first 64 bit Atom CPUs (Bay Trail) and then a bunch of them got shipped with only 32 bit UEFI and cannot boot in 64 bit mode.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  They have to _boot_ with a 32-bit UEFI bootloader, but can run a 64-bit kernel and userland. Fedora Linux even allows for this while keeping secure boot on; Debian supports it as well but the interaction with secure boot is buggy, so you need to turn it off. Not sure about other distros, however.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  Early 64-bit Intel Macs also shipped with a 32-bit UEFI limitation, but they were able to boot into a 64-bit system.
makomk 7y ago
Unfortunately, upstream doesn't really notice if 32-bit x86 breaks. This isn't just a kernel problem; glibc managed to push out a release back in 2017 that broke memchr on 32-bit Atom in a way that tended to cause programs calling it to segfault. It turns out that amongst a few other things, including Python, the glibc build process itself relies on memchr working... I don't think they actually tested the code path in question after modifying it.
- exikyut 7y ago
  Of course it was tested [on the developers' x86_64 laptop(s)]!

bryanlarsen 7y ago

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-gets-around-64-bit-drawbacks-1342061.html http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-x32-ABI-get...

comex 7y ago
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.
- rurban 7y ago
  And I believe he meant i686. Latest Intel CPU's with 32bit pointers.
  - the8472 7y ago
    x86-64 procesors can generally be run in IA32 compatibility mode. And intel still makes some IA32-only chips for embedded.
treeform 7y ago
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.
- comex 7y ago
  The comment is wrong. It is about i386.
geofft 7y ago
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).

thrower123 7y ago

If only... I have been hoping for a native x64 version of Visual Studio for almost a decade, and signs do not look good for that ever coming to fruition. As it is, loading up solutions that consume nearly 2GB of RAM are still bringing the IDE to its knees and making it thrash and page.

mike_hock 7y ago

My old Atom laptops still run perfectly fine. Thanks, Debian.