lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: kernel bug -> security problem
Date
Albert Cahalan wrote:
>
> > PS: I also think that linux-alpha is no 64 bits :^)
>
> What is it then?
>
> sizeof(char *) == 8
> sizeof(long) == 8
>
> 8 bytes is 64 bits. What more do you want?
>

Sorry, i was thinking about MM, but here's what i've
found under a dark and obscure directory on my disk:


> In article <4shphu$kvn@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> Jason V. Robertson <jroberts@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Buh? Linux is tied pretty well to 32 bits. Most Unices are - 64 bit Unix is
> >a pretty new thing. I assume someone somewhere is working on making it work
> >with 64-bit CPU's or has already.
>
> Buh indeed!
>
> Linux has been 64-bit for the last year or two on the alpha, and being
> tied to 32 bit we are _definitely_ not.
>
> Get an alpha, install linux on it, and you'll find you can map hundreds
> of gigabytes of virtual memory, do 64-bit pointer and integer arithmetic
> natively etc etc. There aren't _many_ OS's that can claim to work on
> both 32- and 64-bit architectures, but Linux is definitely there.
>
> (I think IRIX has a 64-bit version, but Solaris is still 32-bit even on
> 64-bit hardware, as is WinNT, of course. NetBSD works on 32/64 bits, and
> Digital UNIX is 64 bit. HP? Dunno).
>
> Linus

My apologise... (Once again, linux amaze me :)

--
Philippe Strauss, CH-1092 Belmont

Email: <philippe.strauss@urbanet.ch>
Homepage: http://sicel-home-1-4.urbanet.ch

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.052 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site