HLFS 64bit again

goodoldmarty at gmail.com goodoldmarty at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 11:41:21 PST 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Really? Try using 16 GB memory in a 32 bit system. Linus said that if
> you want big memory machines use 64 bit processors.

Yes, really.

That quote of Linus is painfully out of context. Should we also assume
he was referring to HLFS?

You do not need to build a 64 bit hardened toolchain to access 16G of
memory on a 32 bit system. 64Gb of memory addressing has been available
in Linux since 2.6.0  Opteron and Xeon are still dual 32 bit processors,
and my new Intel quad-core is not a 128 bit processor either.

Static, multi-threaded tweaked assembler binaries from the $(XXX)
toolchain are much faster than what GCC can produce with -m64 on HLFS.
HLFS kills performance with extra overhead like SSP and dynamic linking.
Add GRsecurity and PAX for enen more unwanted annoyances.

This gets down to the choice is between security hardening "OR" high
performance. Both are highly specialized areas. Pick one.

Marty B.






- --
Putting Microsoft in a computer is like putting screen doors in a
submarine. Hopeless.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHXEThodd/GHZYnVQRAmS4AKCBp9HK7uCdaOfsuvWU7HDkjGb2PQCgp6Vz
F7bLrsYtydE7grMCSiuj1kg=
=euJ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list