> what? "all 64-bit compiling gotchas are fixed in GCC"? please > tell, what "64-bit compiling gotchas" are in gcc? I've been using > gcc on an amd64, in 64-bit mode, for over a year. I haven't > seen any "gotchas".
Did I say amd64 for Intel 64 or X86_64? No I did not. If you would look in the gcc bug database you will find a hole list of bugs for 64bit issues on all architecture sets (Chips). http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24879 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16541 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675 When I said "gotchas" my meaning was when most everyone has been writing 32bit software for the last I don't know 20+ years. Going to 64bit and trying to unlearn all the bad hacks you have had to use for 32bit and the fact that not everyone writes perfect bug free code the first time. There are going to be problems; It may be you write bad code or you have a compiler issue. > now, if you are talking about _libtool_ issues with /usr/lib and > /usr/lib64 (or /usr/lib32), that is a whole other problem that has > nothing to do with gcc. these could be elimitated by ditching > 32-bit support and going 64-bit all the way. Not all of the Linux distributions have compiled every software package on a 64bit processor. There are still 32bit packages out there that case issues like the one you have stated above. I think I would call that a "gotchas" unless you are running Gentoo and you compile everything and not use pre-compiled packages. > and then of course, there is software that makes 32-bit assumptions, > or only has assembly code for x86. again these have nothing to do > with "64-bit compiling gotchas" in gcc. the software, not gcc, has > "64-bit compiling gotchas". That is very true. I would call that a move to 64bit "gotchas" instead of a compiling "gotchas". > now, for "any 64-bit kernel security issues are fixed." you think > there are no 32-bit kernel security issues? if anything, going 64-bit > will buy you a small bit of security by obscurity (granted, worth > only maybe the $0.02 you put into this thread), as script kiddies > try their 32-bit `sploits. How can you make a statement like that? I just don't see how you could say that. That is like saying Oracle is "unbreakable" or "Unhackable" or Windows has no security issues and is more secure than Linux or OpenBSD. Yes there are 32-bit kernel security issues known and unknown. You know what I'm sure there are 64-bit kernel security issues that are not known yet or discovered. Security by obscurity never works and always fails over time. It might work until some one figures out what you are using and then you will get owned. When I give my $0.02. I say that because it is free advice and I'm not telling people what to do. I am only sharing information or knowledge. Then you can use that to do your own research. After you do your own research then and only then I think you can make a informed dissension. Then again you can take my advice for what it's worth because no one is paying me. If you then get into trouble and or screw things up you don't have to take my input anymore. Mike Miller _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
