Re: lilypond-2.19.80-1.linux-64.sh

[David Kastrup]

Blöchl Bernhard <address@hidden> writes:

> May be I have not correctly explained the problem.

Maybe you refuse to understand the problem in spite of it getting
explained again and again.

> First, I HAVE installed a 64bit version of Linux
> Aspire-ES1-571 ~ $ uname -a
> Linux bb-Aspire-ES1-571 4.10.0-38-generic #42~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Tue
> Oct 10 16:30:51 UTC 2017 i686 i686 i686 GNU/Linux

No, this is a 32bit version of Linux.  A 64bit version would be x86_64
rather than i686.

> Second, as a fact I CANNOT get installed the 64bit version of lilypond
> on that system!

Because it is a 32bit system.

> I only could install the 32bit version and I did. At least I have a
> running version of lilypond.
>
> But I wanted to make that curiousity public. Do have other users that
> experience?

Unless you are going to install a 64bit system, you are not going to be
able to run a 64bit version of LilyPond.  Or a 64bit version of _any_
software.

I am leaving the rest of the (increasingly incredible) conversation
appended for reference.

> Am 01.11.2017 09:44, schrieb  bit version of Linux
> David Kastrup:
>> Blöchl Bernhard <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> The 32 bit lilypond installs without problem. No further problem.
>>>
>>> I find it curious that a 64 bit linux installs seamlessly on that
>>> laptop.
>>
>> Why wouldn't it?  Most modern CPUs support 64 bit mode.
>>
>>> Linux Mint definitely does not install a 64 bit version on a 32 bit
>>> systems but definitely cries for a 32 bit install.
>>
>> Your laptop is perfectly fine with 64 bit systems.  But you installed a
>> 32 bit system.  Which the laptop is fine with also.  But current CPUs
>> tend to be optimized for performance in 64 bit mode, so unless your
>> physical memory and disk space make it prudent to stick with 32 bits
>> (like having less than 4GB of main memory or your disk almost filled
>> up), upgrading to 64 bit systems makes sense.
>>
>>> Concerning to reports about Pentium 3556U
>>> it offers 64-bit OS support, Features SSE3 / SSE4.1 / SSE4.2
>>> instructions
>>> May be "OS support" is something less then full 64 bit support? (May
>>> be a possible explanation.)
>>
>> Your CPU would support 64 bit systems, but you are not running a 64 bit
>> system.
>>
>> A 32 bit kernel _cannot_ run 64 bit code, even if the CPU itself would
>> be capable of it.
>>
>> In contrast, a 64 bit kernel can be made to run 32 bit applications as
>> well.  Within limits: some ioctl calls are inherently system dependent,
>> so running 32bit sound applications (for example) on a 64 bit kernel is
>> likely to cause trouble.
>>
>>> Eventually there is a compiler option missing in make? I do not do
>>> further analyses.
>>
>> Make has nothing to do with it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>

-- 
David Kastrup