XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2023-09-21 12:25, nospam wrote:   
   > In article <4y0PM.9717$EIy4.2000@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> the original statement was about *apple* keeping 32 bit compatibility:   
   >>   
   >> Doesn't matter   
   >   
   > it does, since that's what was being discussed.   
   >   
   >> - that is not what I was replying to.  You made an   
   >> assertion that 32b code could not run on a 64b system.  It can.  Not a   
   >> great idea where ARM is concerned - but it can be done.   
   >   
   > 32 bit code can run *only* if there's 32 bit instructions on the chip.   
   >   
   > as i said several times, the a11 *removed* 32 bit, making it   
   > *impossible*, and now android is following with 64-bit only hardware.   
      
   And you intially said that 64-bit "ARM processors" [emphasis mine] don't   
   have 32-bit instructions, when what you meant was only Apple's ARM-based   
   processors.   
      
   You mispoke, and what you said WAS wrong.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)