Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
On Du, 14 mar 21, 15:17:39, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> The original plan/claims was that the support for legacy i386
> application would be "just as fast". This never materialized
> (unsurprisingly: it's easy to make a CPU that can run efficiency several
> slightly different instruction sets (ISA), like your average amd64 CPU which
> can run applications using the amd64 ISA, the i386 ISA, the 80286 ISA
> or the 8086 ISA, more or less; but it's much harder to make a CPU that
> can run efficiently very different ISAs).
Apple seems to be doing quite well with the M1. Apparently it has a few
custom instructions to speed up x86 emulation. They also have the
benefit of controlling the software and now also the hardware stack.
There's already work in progress to port Linux mainline (and
consequently Debian) to the Apple M1 :)
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Reply to:
- References:
- [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
- From: "Susmita/Rajib" <bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com>
- Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
- From: The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
- Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
- From: Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>
- Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
- From: Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de>
- [OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems
- From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>