X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Andrew DeFaria <Andrew AT DeFaria DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2012 20:25:33 -0700
Lines:	31
Message-ID:	<jp73rf$lnf$1@dough.gmane.org>
References:	<CAHomkLT1PncaF4cd0ZMgm4sD1bFvza3DPSUnxLBQ4K5ZLNyu3A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <jp5o12$1fb$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <000601cd351f$da0e4900$8e2adb00$@motionview3d.com> <jp6jdu$nfo$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <4FB6DD43 DOT 9080407 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <jp6s6r$cnr$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <4FB707FA DOT 5070603 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120426 Thunderbird/13.0
In-Reply-To:	<4FB707FA.5070603@users.sourceforge.net>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 05/18/2012 07:39 PM, JonY wrote:
>> I was under the impression that the instruction size matches the natural
>> word size of the machine. Therefore they would be 64 bit instructions.
> No, we are talking about x86, not MIPS/ARM type RISC.
Really? OK - Show me! Because the first mention of even CISC was *your* 
posting two posts ago. Just because you were talking about x86 does not 
mean that I was talking about x86.
> Which do not apply to CISC CPUs, whatever implementation underneath is
> tangent to the user code ISA, the opcodes did not double in size. Please
> at least look at the x86 opcode, they are known to have variable lengths.
I was not talking about your x86 - you were.
>> I still don't understand what having a 64 bit version of ls or grep will
>> do for ya...
> Since 64-bit mode cannot be avoided,
Excuse me but it seems to me that right now it is being avoided quite 
successfully. Cannot be avoided? Really?
> there is simply no reason to keep
> legacy mode applications and all that baggage if you can easily rebuild
> and move to 64-bit mode.
If a 32 bit executable will run on a 64 bit machine, but a 64 bit 
executable will not run on a 32 bit machine, there's no good 
justification to have to maintain two different builds and sets of bits.
> You don't keep 16-bit programs lying about when there are 32-bit
> programs doing the same thing right?
When 32 bit just came around, you betcha I did - and so did you.

All that said, I'd like to see it all move to 64 bit and I know it will, 
eventually. But I can understand the rational for not doing it at this time.
-- 
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
I'm not into working out. My philosophy is no pain, no pain.


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -