Re: sparc64 and sparc architecture -- any consensus?
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 08:08:49AM -0600, Ward Deng wrote:
> > Basically I don't think we should make it easy for some one to screw there
> > system up. sparc64 is a long way off from being able to be the "main
> > environment". Until then, we should probably keep the default sparc32,
> > IMHO on both environments.
> I think the argument was legitimate. However, 32-bit sparc systems will
> soon be phased out just like 486 in x86 domain. There are virtually no
> systems in production anymore. The only users that require Sun to provide
> 32-bit sparc systems are those still use SunOS 4.x for their applications.
> I do not think it will last very long. We cannot just make UltraLinux for
> salvage hardware.
Very true, maybe a well planned "move" to full 64bit is more in order than
doing a "this way" or "that way" type of approach?
> > > "We" are looking for the following 64-bit libraries:
> > >
> > I have a libc.a, ld-linux64.so, and libelf.so if that helps any.
> Great! Where did you get them from and how do I get them?
A very sticky compile using the latest egcs64 from CVS :) I'll compile it
again on xia01, just be warned that the libc.a _is_ missing some symbols
regarding floating point operations, and that I have only compiled
meaningless apps (basename, touch, more, etc..), so I'm not sure if it's
usable for what you want.