On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:13:50AM +0100, Guillaume R. wrote: > 2005/12/5, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:50:55PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > I recently bought a new Intel Xeon server, and when I put it together, I > > > didn't realize that the newer Xeon's were 64bit ... now, I've just built > > > perl 5.8.7, and its reporting: > > > > > > ================= > > > # perl -v > > > This is perl, v5.8.7 built for i386-freebsd-64int > > .. > > > I realize that this may be a stupid question, but am I correct in that > > > *this* is a 64bit machine, and I should be enabling the AMD64 stuff on > > > her? > > > > Perl won't be reporting a 64-bit capable machine, when running a 32-bit > > OS. Look in /var/run/dmesg for 'AMD Features' to report 'LM' (long > > mode). > > Lo > So why there is a 64int? We can suppose that perl has seen that Marc's proc > is a 64 one no? > I asked that cause I got a 64bits (amd) which run on a 32 bits mode and I > got oftenly such "i386-freebsd-64amd" > ++
I'm not a perl expert - but maybe ints in perl actually are 64-bit. Just because an x86 has only 32-bit wide regs, doesn't mean it cannot do 64-bit math. :-) -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon? _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"