Support for X32 ABI

[KDE]

Linux supports new X32 ABI since version 3.4, which is up to 40% faster on Core i7

https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/

Will NVIDIA support it?

[artem]

No, never. Have my word.

Here's an explanation. NVIDIA doesn't support Linux, because they like the idea of the Linux desktop. They support Linux because there's proprietary software for Linux which requires their GPUs. That proprietary software is available only for x86 and x86-64 platforms and there's no chance ISV will try to support yet another Linux specific architecture - it's not just the question of recompiling binaries - this new architecture will require substantial resources (QC/QA/etc.), i.e. money.

[Gusar]

artem makes a good point.

Beyond that, there's also the typical internet thing where people mindlessly repeat stuff because it sounds cool, without putting any deeper thought into it. In this case, repeating the "it's up to 40% faster" mantra.

Has anyone actually determined if the test that achieved such an increase is representative of real-world apps? As in, are the apps that end-users are running on their machines noticeably faster with x32? And to go into other things that usually come up in x32 discussions: Is the ram usage really lower (compared to x86-64)? Are the binaries really smaller (again, compared to x86-64)?

Sure x32 sound great in theory. But whether this'll translate into practice still remains to be seen.

[RealNC]

x32 is not 40% faster. Also, a usable x32 Linux system will not happen in the foreseeable future (perhaps never) because there's much software out there that doesn't work.

And no, x32 doesn't sound "great in theory". Even the theory is borked. Read:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2012/06/debunking-x32-myths

And this comes from a Gentoo Linux dev even, and Gentoo is the first distro to actually support x32.

[KDE]

NVIDIA could drop support for x86 and support X32 instead.
Qt Creator x86-64 in certain case has memory usage 2.4 GB, but Qt Creator x86 only 1.5 GB. X32 should have similar memory usage as x86.

[Gusar]

Originally Posted by KDE

NVIDIA could drop support for x86 and support X32 instead.

LOL!

There's really no other possible response to this. I mean, yeah, let's drop support for those with 32bit processors and those who play Windows games in wine (or even old linux-native games) for a new and totally unproven architecture not yet supported by any distro.

Originally Posted by KDE

Qt Creator x86-64 in certain case has memory usage 2.4 GB, but Qt Creator x86 only 1.5 GB. X32 should have similar memory usage as x86.

Keyword "should". In theory. But see previous posts about theory and practice.

[KDE]

Originally Posted by Gusar

LOL!

There's really no other possible response to this. I mean, yeah, let's drop support for those with 32bit processors and those who play Windows games in wine (or even old linux-native games) for a new and totally unproven architecture not yet supported by any distro.

According to artem NVIDIA doesn't support Linux, because they like the idea of the Linux desktop.
NVIDIA doesn't care about Windows games in wine. Every modern PC has 64-bit CPU.

[Gusar]

Originally Posted by KDE

According to artem NVIDIA doesn't support Linux, because they like the idea of the Linux desktop.
NVIDIA doesn't care about Windows games in wine.

But nevertheless it's supported, even if at low priority. And dropping this support in favor of an unproven new architecture makes no sense.
Then there's the other part of artem's post you left out, about there being 32bit apps among those that are high priority for Nvidia.

Originally Posted by KDE

Every modern PC has 64-bit CPU.

That doesn't mean everyone has one. Or that those who do don't need to run 32bit apps, where ever these apps may be on Nvidia's priority list.

[KDE]

These 32 bit apps could be solved if Linux kernel dropped support for x86. People with 32-bit CPU should buy newer PC. There is also possibility there would be long-lived branch releases with support for x86 and x86-64 and official releases with support for X32 and x86-64.

[artem]

Originally Posted by KDE

These 32 bit apps could be solved if Linux kernel dropped support for x86. People with 32-bit CPU should buy newer PC. There is also possibility there would be long-lived branch releases with support for x86 and x86-64 and official releases with support for X32 and x86-64.

Remember, no one owes you anything. No one has to dispose of their perfectly working systems just because you think they should.

I have a 64bit CPU with 8GB of RAM and, guess what, I'm running a ... 32bit Linux distro (with PAE). Why? Because I don't have any applications which magically work a lot faster in 64bit mode. Because I don't want to have a 32bit compatibility layer because I need to run Skype and Wine applications.

A few months ago I compared 32bit and 64bit versions of Firefox. At least in the V8 test made by Google 32bit Firefox is ... 25% faster than 64bit Firefox (the same system, the same kernels/libraries/etc.)

[KDE]

People who would need 32-bit would use long-lived branch.
32-bit can be faster than 64-bit. This is also reason that X32 is needed.

Following test needs 49% more memory and 18% more time on x86-64 than on X32

x86-64
Elapsed time: 736 ms
Memory usage: VmRSS: 51868 kB

X32
Elapsed time: 623 ms
Memory usage: VmRSS: 34788 kB

#include <QtCore>
#include <set>
#include <stdlib.h>

using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    QCoreApplication a(argc, argv);
    QTextStream out(stdout);
    set<int> loset;
    int count = 1024 * 1024;
    QTime time;
    time.start();
    while (count--) {
        loset.insert(random());
    }
    out << "Elapsed time: " << time.elapsed() << " ms" << endl;
    QFile status("/proc/self/status");
    status.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly);
    QTextStream loin(&status);
    auto lobuf = loin.readAll().split('\n');
    for (auto && Loit = lobuf.constBegin(); Loit != lobuf.constEnd(); Loit++) {
        if (Loit->contains("VmRSS")) {
            out << "Memory usage: " <<  *Loit << endl;
        }
    }
    loset.clear();

}

[Gusar]

Originally Posted by artem

I have a 64bit CPU with 8GB of RAM and, guess what, I'm running a ... 32bit Linux distro (with PAE). Why? Because I don't have any applications which magically work a lot faster in 64bit mode. Because I don't want to have a 32bit compatibility layer because I need to run Skype and Wine applications.

Wow, such people still exist? I though I'm the only one. I too don't see any need for a 64bit install, for the same reasons you state. What's different on my machine is that I only have 2GB of RAM. For a 32bit install, even that is almost overkill.
Then there's the thing where I share the same installation on all my machines because it makes maintenance much simpler, and only one of them is 64bit.

These 32 bit apps could be solved if Linux kernel dropped support for x86.

*facepalm*

People with 32-bit CPU should buy newer PC.

*double facepalm*