The executable file, "astropulse_5.03_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" is loaded and happily crunching. However, it is a 32-bit statically linked application and on my amd64 with 64-bit OS and libraries installed I was expecting a 64-bit executable. Especially since the "x86_64" is part of the file name. (A S@H x86_64 executable also installed is, in fact, a 64-bit executable.)
I gather from other threads that there is only minimal performance improvement in 64- vs 32-bit executables so I'm not really concerned about that. Just curious, nevertheless, as to application file naming conventions. If there really were an astropulse 64-bit version, How would it be identified to distinguish from the 32-bits?

Second, but related, question: BOINC/Seti@home originally gave me an astropulse_5.00* file and about 10 days ago automatically downloaded the 5.03 version, and has been using it ever since. Is it safe to delete all the 5.00 files? Or, will boinc clean out obsolete versions on its own?

Thanks...

---

The AP name was so chosen because of the way BOINC identifies 32bit and 64bit platforms, and subsequently how it asks for appropriate executables from the project servers. If a 64bit version were ever released, they'd simply compile it as a newer version with the same 64bit filename.


BOINC will clean out all older executables on its own. As of right now, due to the differences between AP v5 and AP v5.03, v5.03 was released as a different app so that v5 quorum partners would not accidentally get and crunch v5.03 tasks which would never pass validation when paired together.

---