39
Debian Trixie raises x86 minimum requirements to i686.
(www.debian.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
18085 readers
77 users here now
If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thank-you a lot for that. I wander around the tech blogs like lobsters etc, Reddit and here but never see anything that i remember seeing (if you follow me), but I don't consciously look.
Encryption lengths are getting long so you'd think it was high time.
Your description sounds like the advent of 32 bits where there was a 16 bit address bus stage.
that's unrelated - AES-256 for example can be executed just fine on either a 32- or 64-bit machine. in theory there's nothing stopping you from running it on an 8-bit or 16-bit CPU (although other considerations related to the size of AES's lookup tables make this unlikely). from some random googling, here is an implementation of Chacha20, another 256-bit encryption algorithm, for 8-bit microcontrollers.
when we talk about 32 vs 64-bit CPUs, in general we're only talking about the address space - the size of a pointer determines how much RAM the computer is able to use. 32-bit machines were typically limited to 4GB (though PAE helped kick that can down the road)
CPU registers can also be sized independently of the address space - for example AVX-512 CPUs have a register that is 512 bits wide even though the CPU is still "64-bit".
I started out programming a 6502a in 1980, 680X0 a little later in 87, so I get that bit, but it's easier doing operations on a larger register. I remember writing code for 8 bit multiplication of floating points.
I enjoyed and understood the rest of your prose though. Didn't do much/any programming/low level after say 2005, and regret it now. Trying to re-learn but things have moved on so much.
I take that there isn't much motivation in moving to 128 because it's big enough; it's only 8 cycles (?) to fill a 512 (that can't be right?).
8 cycles would be an eternity on a modern CPU, they can achieve multiple register sized loads per cycle.
If we do see a CPU with 128 bit addresses anytime soon, it'll be something like CHERI, where the extra bits are used for flags.