On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:13:24PM -0700, Michael Miller wrote: > >"missed optimization", and this is for 64-bit data x86, not x86_64. > > Look my point was there are some problems / issues. Searching the gcc > bug database you can see that. I'm not saying it is a show stopper > but there are problems / issues. Your view is there are no problems > or "Gotchas".
are you saying there are no issues in i386? what is the difference? yes, there are some issues on 64-bit platforms. I pointed a couple of them out. fairly specific examples at that. > I say let the bug database tell the truth. it looks to me like you used "64 bit" in a search, and are drawing conclusions about what that actually means. if you're going to provide examples, you might as well check that 2 of the 3 are _against_ your position. this is why I don't buy your arguments. > I'm also > not saying that going to 64bit is wrong or 32bit is better than 64bit. > That is a losing argument. What I am saying is if you want stability > go with 32bit for 6 months. this is the first time you have used the word "stability". and I'm saying that 6 months is past. in fact, I do believe I gave someone on this list the advice to wait 6 months about 6 months ago. can't seem to find a searchable archive of this list though. > I may some times use absolute statements a bit too much. This is a > statement that has been true for many years. Security though / by > obscurity never works. ? you've never seen someone try to attack apache with an IIS exploit? that is effectively security through obscurity. > > > It might work until some one figures out what > > > you are using and then you will get owned. > > > > maybe. most script kiddies use prebuilt software though. of course, > > the people creating the sploits know what they are doing, but the > > kiddies out there using them are usually fairly clueless in all > > reality. > > This is very true. > > > but as I said, security by obscurity is worth maybe $0.02. why you > > have to try to make it sound like I said anything different is > > beyond me. > > It's beyond me that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. My because the evidence you supplied was contrary to your arguments. sorry, I have a bad habit of calling out BS. > point with my post was to wait 6 months for stability. If you don't > care about stability then go ahead and use at your own risk. > > > > 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. > > > > I did my research. I have been using amd64 for almost 2 years. > > yeah, there was some pain at first, but these days it's pretty smooth > > sailing. > > > > how much real experience do you have with modern 64-bit platforms? > > I started working with 64bit Systems in 1998 with Sun Sparc systems > and then in 1999 HP-UX systems. I started working with Linux 64bit > builds in 2004-2005. so you must have some specific examples of issues you have faced. why did you not write about these, and instead make some vague comment about bugs in gcc and provide counter examples? > > fwiw, you have made my list of people whose advice I should ignore. > > You obviously like to pick fights to make up for what ever > shortcomings you have. and you apparently try to compensate weak arguments with personal insults. now you are in my .procmailrc. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
