On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM, brian m. carlson
<sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 10:06:17PM -0400, A E [Gmail] wrote:
> #> ./Configure linux64-sparcv9
>
> It built it and stuff but I see no libssl.so anywhere. Where did the libs
> go? Do I need to use a different make target to build this or do I need a
> different package like openssl-dev?. Weird!
I don't know. I use the Debian package.
> So I'm not entirely clear on what you just said. Did you mean to say that
> this IS true for amd64 or did you mean to say it's true for sparc64 and
> hence almost all libs available for Sparc64 are actually 32-bit but in all
> other cases, building software as 64-bit actually does improve performance?
amd64 is usually faster than i386, but 32-bit sparc is usually faster
than 64-bit sparc.
Ahhh Ok, now I get it. Thanks Brian
> Also, I have no idea what sparc32 is. Will have to do research but according
> to the community of this particular software AND the authors as well, this
> software performs far better in a 64-bit environment/arch than in 32-bit.
> So, I am relatively insistent on building it as 64-bit although IF all other
> libraries it's using (due to the fact that my system is essentially running
> 64-bit Linux with 32-bit libraries, then I won't see any performance
> improvement?
Whether you'll see any performance improvement is dependent on what the
software does. Perhaps you will. There are some cases where I do in my
own code. In general, though, most people don't. If you want to build
this software as 64-bit and Debian does not provide 64-bit versions of
those libraries, you'll have to build your own 64-bit copies by hand.
Again, whether there's any performance improvement from doing that is
dependent on the particular programs and libraries.
sparc32 tells the program you give it that the system is 32-bit. It
does this by changing the uname -m output.
Ok, that's what I thought it would logically do. The only issue right now is that I'm unable to compile that software since it's looking for libssl and disqualifying all the libraries present through the packages I installed from the repo. So like you, I installed libssl, libssl-dev, openssl etc from the relevant repo but the software when compiling doesn't like it.
So now, either I compile that software as 32-bit, which I have already tried and ran into a bunch of other issues OR I compile openssl on my machine and hopefully it'll compile as 64-bit, but even that I've tried and I didn't get the libssl.so libraries out of that. Now how do I use sparc32 in this case? Like how can I tell the build process to accept the 32-bit libssl I do have to be compatible.
Before you ask, I have also a thread going in the mailing list of the actual software but people there are insistent that something is botched in my machine for it to not compile as a few other community members have successfully compiled and are running in production that software on 64-bit Debian. I guess they missing piece is that I'm running 64-bit debian on Sparc and no one else is :(