[LAU] Bye Bye 32 bit

[Jeremy Henty]

Len Ovens wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017, Jeremy Henty wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but I  am not clear what  that means.  It could  mean "If you
> > want I can split the work into concurrent processes/threads in the
> > hope that  you have enough  cores to  benefit from this.".   Or it
> > could mean "I  *will* pin different processes  to different cores,
> > and I will fail if those cores aren't there.".
> 
> As a developer, I would not want my sw to fail because some *** user
> told me to spread out my workload  over 12 cores when there are only
> 4. I would want my sw to run and never crash.

I  guess my  use of  the  word "fail"  was too  vague.  Obviously  the
software should  not crash.  But  if the user specifies  an impossible
combination of options  then the software should say  "I'm sorry Dave,
I'm afraid  I can't do that"  rather than silently do  something other
than what the user wanted.

My impression is that at the moment  most users only get the option of
telling the software "use as many  cores as you like" and the software
does the rest  for itself, so the issue of  the user making impossible
demands does  not arise.  It  would be nice to  know for sure  what is
going on, but since I am neither a gamer or an audiophile I don't have
the hardware or the incentive to do the research myself.

Regards,

Jeremy Henty