Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 19:50:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20181213.195022.492897188175961278.hartrumpf@gmx.net>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?
From:   Sven Hartrumpf <hartrumpf@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <20181213.103731.734229932284065893.hartrumpf@gmx.net>
References: <20181213050313.GA21201@ip-172-31-15-78>
        <CAFLxGvy2sMW1nyMpxGN7xHPdUea713g89MdE3EcUNHJDCvZ3jA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181213.103731.734229932284065893.hartrumpf@gmx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi.

I reported several significant speedups gained by the x32 ABI
for Scheme-based applications (compiled via a gcc backend), e.g.

https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/chicken-users/2015-09/msg00000.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/bigloo@inria.fr/msg00427.html
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/why-is-there-no-kernel-support-for-the-x32-abi-config-x86-x32/55156/9

As a tech startup in cognitive search and NLP (https://www.sempria.de/),
the benefits of the x32 ABI in terms of saved compute time and costs are
vital for us.

It's a pity that x32 has not gained the momentum that it deserves.
Two suggestions to change this:

1. One could extend a prominent page like https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
   with positive and negative results for applications w.r.t. the x32 ABI.
   I am willing to rewrite and update the results that I reported over the years.

2. The name x32 is too short, not search-engine friendly, and ambiguous (most
   people think it's about i386 ...). Is not there a better name?

Ciao
Sven