Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

It's Over: Intel Publishes "x86-S" Specification, for 64-Bit Only x86 Architecture

posted by janrinok on Monday May 22, @11:56AM   Printer-friendly

takyon writes:

Intel Publishes "X86-S" Specification For 64-bit Only Architecture

Intel quietly released a new whitepaper and specification for their proposal on "X86-S" as a 64-bit only x86 architecture. If their plans workout, in the years ahead we could see a revised 64-bit only x86 architecture.

Entitled "Envisioning a Simplified Intel Architecture", Intel engineers lay the case for a 64-bit mode-only architecture. Intel is still said to be investigating the 64-bit mode-only architecture that they also refer to as "x86S". Intel is hoping to solicit industry feedback while they continue to explore a 64-bit mode only ISA.

[...] Under this proposal, those wanting to run legacy 32-bit operating systems would have to rely on virtualization. To further clarify, 32-bit x86 user-space software would continue to work on modern 64-bit operating systems with X86-S.

Also at Tom's Hardware.

Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
It's Over: Intel Publishes "x86-S" Specification, for 64-Bit Only x86 Architecture | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 35 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday May 22, @03:57PM (1 child)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 22, @03:57PM (#1307341) Journal

    Is this sufficiently different, especially[1] at boot time, that a different kernel binary is needed at boot time?

    Is it possible to have a 64 bit kernel binary for Intel that new firmware could launch into, possibly at multiple entry points depending on which type of processor is installed?

    I assume that firmware could be rewritten to start in pure 64 bit mode. What must happen to hand off control to a loaded kernel (for any OS)?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    -=-=-=-
    [1]for those who don't know better, there is no X in eXpecially or eXcape

    --
    How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 23, @02:15PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday May 23, @02:15PM (#1307664)

    I suspect so. But I suspect it won't be all that big a change. You just need to eliminate the initial part of the boot sequence where the OS jumps through a bunch of hoops to get into 64-bit mode.

    I would *assume* that there's an easy mechanism in the proposal for "universal" binaries to recognize whether they're on x64 or x86s hardware, and just skip the hoop-jumping part of the boot sequence for the latter.

    I don't know the intricacies of the Linux boot process, but I suspect it should otherwise be mostly unaffected - if you want stuff to be available to a fully-booted 64-bit OS, then you probably need to already be in 64-bit mode when it's first loaded into memory, so I would assume transitioning to 64-bit mode is one of the very first things it does.