Consider making 32 bit builds for background packages? #232

Open
opened 2024-02-05 00:56:23 +01:00 by GnomedDev · 0 comments

I understand if you don't want to do this for maintenance burden, if so, just close this issue.

A large amount of services are never going to use 2-4gb of ram, so idle memory usage could seriously benefit from building with 32 bit pointers. This would also benefit performance as less memory usage leads to less cache pressure, less swapping, and less instructions needed to manipulate pointer data. If a list of packages could be made of executables that would never need the extra address space so could be built as 32 bit pointers with 64 bit feature set, that would be a dream come true.

A massive downside is that it requires 32 bit packages all the way down, for libraries, but this should be possible as you already have the buildbot to do this.

I am pretty sure compilers are able to produce this combination, I know Rust can definitely with the i686 target and the target-cpu value being set to 64 bit instruction set levels.

I understand if you don't want to do this for maintenance burden, if so, just close this issue. A large amount of services are never going to use 2-4gb of ram, so idle memory usage could seriously benefit from building with 32 bit pointers. This would also benefit performance as less memory usage leads to less cache pressure, less swapping, and less instructions needed to manipulate pointer data. If a list of packages could be made of executables that would never need the extra address space so could be built as 32 bit pointers with 64 bit feature set, that would be a dream come true. A massive downside is that it requires 32 bit packages all the way down, for libraries, but this should be possible as you already have the buildbot to do this. I am pretty sure compilers are able to produce this combination, I know Rust can definitely with the i686 target and the target-cpu value being set to 64 bit instruction set levels.
anonfunc added the
enhancement
label 2024-02-06 10:52:23 +01:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No description provided.