[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux/IA-64 byte order
In article <199903090013.LAA21453@vindaloo.atnf.CSIRO.AU>,
Richard Gooch <> wrote:
> Hi, all. I've been discussing the byte order that Linux/IA-64 will
>have with David Mosberger from HP. I'm arguing for big-endian to be

Not a chance in hell.

The whole point of IA-64 is to run x86 binaries while still being able
to do large data-sets (if you didn't want to run x86 binaries you should
just buy an alpha instead, and forget about IA-64).

And I'm not going to accept a IA-64 port that does big-endian IA-64 mode
and little-endian x86 mode. That's just too ugly for words.

>I implore you: please reconsider your decision. Don't punish Linux
>because of the x86 legacy.

Buy an ultra64 if you need big-endian and 64 bits. Really.

We're going to run x86 binaries on any merced we ever have in the near
future - we may certainly run native merced binaries too, but running
x86 binaries is a given. Which would mean that if the Linux/merced port
was natively big-endian, it would have to do a lot of extra conversions
from x86 user space to kernel space, for no good technical reason.

Mixing endianness on the fly is certainly possible, but stupid unless
you have some REALLY good reason for it. And quite frankly, there are
NEVER any good technical reasons for considering one endianness over
another (it's a completely arbitrary thing).


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.117 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site