[sldev] x86_64-Linux?

Soft soft at lindenlab.com
Sat Feb 2 12:42:59 PST 2008


On Feb 2, 2008 1:18 PM, Alan Grimes <agrimes at speakeasy.net> wrote:
> I really think there should be a mainline x86_64 linux client binary
> published on the web page. the x86_64 architecture has been out for a
> good four years now and is now supported by virtually all chips on the
> market today. If there are any incompatibilities, they really should be
> addressed anyway.

There are no incompatibilities. Every mainstream 64-bit Linux
distribution supports 32-bit compatibility and offers the set of
libraries we require.

Presumably you mean you want 64-bit pure code for reasons other than
compatibility. But, where's the value in an official binary coming
from LL?

There's no perceptible speed difference between the 32- and 64-bit
Linux viewer builds, based off of Robin's builds at least. The
viewer's not taxing the 32-bit address space. We are going to be
taxing QA by moving 32-bit Linux from alpha to beta, and they're
already spread a little thin. Given that Linux users are a fraction of
a percentage of SL, that 64-bit users will be a subset of those, and
that there's no measured benefit to the 64-bit pure viewer, it would
be much easier to defend more resources going to i18n issues.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above. If I'm missing
reasons, I'm glad to be convinced and to help convince my peers. I run
a 64-bit viewer myself, but it's because I'm excited about the Fedora
and Debian packaging efforts, not for any user benefit.

As it stands, continuing to improve the use of openjpeg and openal
seems the most profitable use of time for supporting 64-bit pure
builds. The Second Life viewer will become something Linux
distributions can bundle and compile themselves, including with 64-bit
builds. Several of you are doing great work here; it's reasonable to
see it happening this quarter at this rate, and I and other Lindens
will be happy to help make that happen.


More information about the SLDev mailing list