hey,
A lot of us get new x86_64 processors ...
It's kinda waste to install the 32bit slackware when you want to push those babies to the edge...
I don't want to get a new dual core and use the memory address length of a IA32 CPU.

Anyone tried to compile SlackWare for a x86_64 machine ? (AMD64 or EM64T)

I've seen the the slackware build scripts have a generic x86_64 support.
With a bit of a change like adding march=k8 for AMD64 it could go better i guess

I believe the most nasty part is if source code of a program requires patching to work in x86_64 and that's what i read in the slam64 site.But if the slack build script has an option for x86_64 i believe it will work ...

I know that there is slam64 but it's not a official port and for that i don't want to use it so please do not reffer to it

Any information is appreciated


PS: Maybe if we manage to gather a lot of information we could rename this thread to a manual for porting slackware to x86_64.

The greater majority of us don't.

No, it doesn't. If you want to find if programs need patches or not, look at the SlackBuild's for Slamd64 to see what has to be applied. I mean, Pat also adds in an S/390 option, but he doesn't maintain that port either so it's no guarantee the program will build.

Basically, if you're expecting an official port to x86_64 - don't hold your breath. Given that Pat is a one man team, who, AFAIK, doesn't have any x86_64 hardware, and produces a distribution which is designed to be up-to-date but *stable* (and mostly built against i486 for greater compatibility), not about being compiled for the latest and greatest, so I don't imagine it's a priority.

Well to tell you the truth i have a very old PC @ 400MHz that's why i am getting a new one x86_64.

Slackware is and will be one of the best distros for servers and for that there should be something like /testing for a x86_64 port so that there is some movement around it so that when x86_64 source gets more stability to have a port ..
Most of the new servers are Opterons or Xeons , AMD64 or EM64T respectively..
32bit distro can run on x84_64 but you don't get the full of your system , especially on servers that demand a lot of memory..

Be sure that Pat is not alone at all.
There are a lot lot of slackers that could help him and they do that.
Personally I believe that a lot of people would use a x86_64 port of slackware but that's up to Pat.

I know you've said don't refer to Slamd64, but, I feel I can't *not* refer to it when discussing x86_64 ports. In short, let me say that I don't believe there will be an x86_64 port for a very very long time yet.

In long, let me explain why ...

But first, let me say a few things for and against Slamd64. We'll use it as a case study, so to speak, and to highlight some of the good and bad it is.

FOR:
* Pat helped slamd64 maintainer Fred build slamd64.
* Security updates from Slack -current equally get applied to Slamd64 -current.
* It is functional and functionally like Slack.
* It is being actively worked on.

AGAINST:
* Busybox still has some problems with x86_64 hardware, so installation is only smooth in about 50% of cases (hardware dependant).
* Slack "stable" programs may not compile straight on to x86_64 due to the age of the software. What's stable in Slack 10 just plain doesn't work in Slamd64 (in some cases).
* Similar to above, the toolchain in Slack 10 is not as suitable for x86_64 as it is for i486, marking yet another discrepency between them.

x86_64 hardware (in my opinion) is still not as intrinsically stable as i386. Although it is getting better all the time (the development cycle appears rapid), ultimately the combination of "new" (yes, I know it's been around for a while - but not as long as x86!) consumer hardware and new software to run on that hardware gives it an intrinsic instability. My understanding of an "official" Slackware port is drawn from this paragraph:

As I've pointed out already, some packages in stable Slack just don't play nice when compiled for a x86_64 platform. Therefore, until Slackware stable catches up to newer toolchains and programs, you won't get an "official" port, because those packages *can't* be ported sensibly to provide a stable Slack-64.

A few disclaimer points:
* My figures are rough, please don't quote me.
* I have a tendancy to jump on any x86_64 thread. It's a topic that interests me, sorry =)
* If you haven't tried Slamd64, try it before you disregard it. Perseverance is the key - once you're past installation, the rest is plain-Slackware-sailing.
* I'm a Slackware advocate, and would love to have an "official" port, but Slamd64 is a good interim, or even starting point for that to occur. The more support they get, the better slamd64 becomes, the faster it becomes stable ...

w00t!
- Piete "Oh thank goodness, he's finished" Sartain.

Personally, I don't think there's much benefit in going from 32-bit addressing to 64-bit addressing. Very few applications really need that amount of address space.

there is an unofficial SLAMD64 which is what you need.

Riddick