A stupid 64bit question ... but ...

[David O'Brien]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:13:50AM +0100, Guillaume R. wrote:
> 2005/12/5, David O'Brien <obrien at freebsd.org>:
> > 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  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
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?