XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: antispam@fricas.org   
      
   In comp.arch Scott Lurndal  wrote:   
   > Terje Mathisen  writes:   
   >>Stephen Fuld wrote:   
   >>> On 8/4/2025 8:32 AM, John Ames wrote:   
   >>>=20   
   >>> snip   
   >>>=20   
   >>>> This notion that the only advantage of a 64-bit architecture is a larg=   
   >>e   
   >>>> address space is very curious to me. Obviously that's *one* advantage,=   
   >>   
   >>>> but while I don't know the in-the-field history of heavy-duty business=   
   >>/   
   >>>> scientific computing the way some folks here do, I have not gotten the=   
   >>   
   >>>> impression that a lot of customers were commonly running up against th=   
   >>e   
   >>>> 4 GB limit in the early '90s;   
   >>>=20   
   >>> Not exactly the same, but I recall an issue with Windows NT where it=20   
   >>> initially divided the 4GB address space in 2 GB for the OS, and 2GB for=   
   >>=20   
   >>> users.=C2=A0 Some users were "running out of address space", so Microso=   
   >>ft=20   
   >>> came up with an option to reduce the OS space to 1 GB, thus allowing up=   
   >>=20   
   >>> to 3 GB for users.=C2=A0 I am sure others here will know more details.   
   >>   
   >>Any program written to Microsoft/Windows spec would work transparently=20   
   >>with a 3:1 split, the problem was all the programs ported from unix=20   
   >>which assumed that any negative return value was a failure code.   
   >   
   > The only interfaces that I recall this being an issue for were   
   > mmap(2) and lseek(2).   The latter was really related to maximum   
   > file size (although it applied to /dev/[k]mem and /proc//mem   
   > as well).  The former was handled by the standard specifying   
   > MAP_FAILED as the return value.   
   >   
   > That said, Unix generally defined -1 as the return value for all   
   > other system calls, and code that checked for "< 0" instead of   
   > -1 when calling a standard library function or system call was fundamentally   
   > broken.   
      
   I remeber RIM.  When I compiled it on Linux and tried it I got error   
   due to check for "< 0".  Change to '== -1" fixed it.  Possibly there   
   were similar troubles in other programs that I do not remember.   
      
   --   
                                 Waldek Hebisch   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)