Guy-Fleury Iteriteka <gfle...@disroot.org> writes: > On May 15, 2023 4:38:34 PM GMT+02:00, "jbra...@dismail.de" > <jbra...@dismail.de> wrote: >>--- >>I explained that the Hurd has initial 64-bit support, but I >>did not mention if the project plans to drop 32-bit >>support. Joshua >> >> faq/64-bit.mdwn | 10 +++------- >> open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn | 6 +----- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >>diff --git a/faq/64-bit.mdwn b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >>index 2e1278cb..82513d25 100644 >>--- a/faq/64-bit.mdwn >>+++ b/faq/64-bit.mdwn >>@@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] >> >> [[!meta title="Is there a 64-bit version?"]] >> >>-There are currently no plan for 64-bit userland for the short term, but there >>-are plans for 64-bit kernelland with 32-bit userland, which will >> notably permit >>-to efficiently make use of more than 2 GiB memory and provide 4 GiB userland >>-addressing space. The kernel support was merged into GNU Mach, the currently >>-missing bit is the 32/64 mig translation for kernel RPCs. >>+As of May 2023, the Hurd developers have a bootable 64-bit Debian > Are sure a debian hurd boot??
I believe so. It is certainly not a Guix Hurd. :) >>+GNU/Hurd. The 64 bit kernel and userspace is mostly working, but bugs >>+still need to be fixed. >> >>-That being said, you can always run a 32-bit version on a 64-bit machine, it >>-just works, processes are just limited to a couple GiB available memory. >>diff --git a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >>index 95761828..ca30ba64 100644 >>--- a/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >>+++ b/open_issues/64-bit_port.mdwn >>@@ -13,11 +13,7 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] >> >> [[!inline pages="title(Is there a 64-bit version?)" feeds="no" raw="yes"]] >> >>-**What is left for initial support (32-on-64) is** >>- >>- * Fixing bugs :) >>- >>-**For pure 64bit support, we need to** >>+**For 64-bit support, we need to** >> >> * Fix bugs :) >> * bootstrap a distrib > > Hi, > -- Joshua Branson Sent from the Hurd
