Matthew Dillon was considering completing AMD64 support for the next release, and it looks like he might be starting on it.
 Update: No, that’s disklabel work. Thanks to ‘anonymous’ for indirectly pointing that out.
4 Replies to “AMD64 support for 2.0?”
Comments are closed.
Would be cool, because most servers out there are either shipped with Opterons or Itanium 64’s (and usually contain more than 4 GB RAM). I can of course test this once it’s in a working stage.
“Itanium 64s?”
Intel’s marchitecture for AMD64-compatibles was “EM64T” (apparently “Intel 64,” now), shipped under the Xeon/Pentium #/Core brands, so I’m wondering if this means you’re actually using Itaniums (“IA-64”) in the wild. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em64t#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64 looks interesting for people like me who (for lack of anything interesting supporting 64-bit mode) haven’t been paying attention.
I know the difference between the two, but somewhere I read about “pc64” ports meaning x86_64 and ia64.
Yeah, I think it was the time of all the header reorganization, when Matt created the platform, machine, machine_arch, etc. values.
Shiningsilence.com uses a AMD processor (socket 754), so I’d be happy to have have support for it – not that I’ve noticed any CPU performance issues to date.