hi, im just working for a boot loader.
bit im wondering how to make a 64-bit one:confused:

at what time its possible make such proggs?
Posted on 2003-05-15 10:14:12 by Bubu-Boy

at what time its possible make such proggs?


At midnight but only with full moon.
Posted on 2003-05-15 10:31:23 by bazik
:grin:
Posted on 2003-05-15 10:32:26 by JCP

At midnight but only with full moon.

Don't forget that the year must be a multiple of 64!!!
Take a look at SuSE linux, they've already got a kernel for AMD64, for intel 64 CPUs there has been linux kernels around long time, so in short: linux has wokring boot loardes and systems for 64-bit CPUs.
Posted on 2003-05-15 10:42:04 by scientica
hi, you posts show every time how funny the programming-group is!:alright: :grin:

i mean its possible to make a 64-bit loader?
Not, wich time(watch), rahter at wich point.:alright:
Posted on 2003-05-15 11:27:53 by Bubu-Boy

i mean its possible to make a 64-bit loader?


Yes.
Posted on 2003-05-15 12:31:36 by bazik
thats very fine, where are tutorials?
how to learn to get in the 64-bti wordl?:grin:
Posted on 2003-05-15 12:38:03 by Bubu-Boy
Posted on 2003-05-15 12:46:20 by bazik
Thats all?:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :stupid:
Posted on 2003-05-15 12:54:59 by Bubu-Boy

Thats all?:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :stupid:


Why dont you google yourself? You'll find a lot of info.

If you dont know how to search for technical documents, you shouldnt try to learn programming :tongue:
Posted on 2003-05-15 13:31:30 by bazik
Why do you need a 64bit boot loader?
Are you anticipating having a system with more than 4294967296 boot options?

The hardware is basic x86 hardware, and being backwards compatible means it too will respond to a standard "32 bit" boot loader. The boot seqence must be compatible with the lowest common denominator hardware, AMD would shoot themselves in the foot if you needed special boot software, as it would completely destroy their whole "64 bit and completely backwards compatible" marketing push.

If you want to design a boot loader for an Itanium, Alpha, Sparc Ultra, or PA-RISC box, then google for them.

Mirno
Posted on 2003-05-15 13:52:23 by Mirno
I wish Hiro would install a word filter to censor "proggie"
Posted on 2003-05-15 14:35:56 by iblis
I haven't much expierince, thats the reason for asking.
I'm thinking, that 64-bit is mcuh faster.

Well done...
Posted on 2003-05-15 14:40:52 by Bubu-Boy
Afternoon, Bubu-Boy.

I'm thinking, that 64-bit is mcuh faster.

It probably only seems faster, since 64-bit cpus are only on modern chips, and modern chips are a lot faster than older ones.

Cheers,
Scronty
Posted on 2003-05-15 16:40:38 by Scronty
In part what Scronty says is true, although 64 bit has been around for a quite a long time now.

However, 64 bit != fast.
The maximum addressable space increase does not give more speed per se.
The increased register size does not give more speed.

64 bit is "better" is that in particular problems, larger quantities of data can be operated upon in a single pass. Consider an XOR encrypter, with 64 bit registers at your disposal, you can xor twice as much in one instruction than you can with 32 bit registers.

64 bit is better when dealing with large address ranges. Problems such as databases, which have huge memory requirements will either be limited to 4GB of memory, use a hack (like PAE), or move to 64 bit addressing (even though the AMD64 a.k.a. Hammer has only 48 bit internal address registers this is a vast improvement in terms of addressable memory). By avoiding PAE, there isn't the layer of indirection inside the processor, and the level of interoperability is higher (programs which use the dirty PAE hack sometimes do not work well with other apps which don't use it).

64 bit processors are also usually acompanied with wider memory busses, to cope with the increased data that they are designed to deal with (this is similar to Scronty's point). As they can operate on larger data units, they need to be fed data faster so they can operate near their potential. So even when not working on the 64 bit data, they tend to be faster due to the better behind the scenes design.

Also in the case of the AMD64, the increase in GPRs is a massive boon. It is more likely that there will be a register to use, and that you won't have to shunt some value out to memory.

All these contribute to performance in certain situations, and can make the processor run much faster. However, there are still plenty of cases where the speed cannot be helped by throwing more bandwidth at it. There are also cases where the increase in speed is simply not a battle worth fighting - boot loaders are one.
A boot loader will only be run once, it will spend most of its time waiting for use intervention, and size is really more important than any form of processing.

A 64 bit boot loader is a waste of time and effort, its not exactly high maths.

Mirno
Posted on 2003-05-15 17:02:51 by Mirno
Mirno thanks for you good answer. *gosip gosop gosip*:alright:

I will keep it in mind.

so i can work at my ops() faster!:grin:

Well done...and THX
Posted on 2003-05-15 23:57:07 by Bubu-Boy