Talk:X32 ABI

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Both faster and slower?[edit]

"On average x32 is 5–8% faster on the SPEC CPU integer benchmarks compared to x86-64 but it can as likely be much slower."

How can something, on average, be both faster and much slower?

I'd take a stab at fixing the sentence, but I don't know what it's trying to say.

108.64.117.104 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

x32 for ARM64?[edit]

I know x32 is x86-64 specific, but I would like to know when something similar is done for ARM64 (ARMv8-A) - the new ARM architecture. See: [1] Seems just as needed/useful there. If implemented as a version of x32 belongs here or maybe even plans (not that I know of) would belong here. [For other eg. SPARC and POWER, 64- and 32-bit are really the same (if minor change) instruction sets, and maybe something for them is trivial or already "done".] comp.arch (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glibc Support[edit]

...says citation needed, https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-06/msg00807.htm looks suitable. Tried to add it but WP refuses to format it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewx (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Memory per Process in x86-64[edit]

The table comparing x32 and x86-64 specifies that the max memory per process in x86-64 is 128 terabytes, but it seems like that should be 256 terabytes. The x86-64 page has a section on canonical form addresses that details why the limit is 256 terabytes, instead of the 2^64 bytes that some people might expect. I don't see any mention of 128 terabytes, and it's not clear where that number come from with regards to Linux (it seems like that might be a limit for modern Windows processes, but since this is a Linux specific ABI, it doesn't make much sense to talk about Windows specific limits) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.36.4 (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

x86-64 ABI?[edit]

We need a separate Wiki page on the x86-64 / System V ABI. Agnerf (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]