lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Pure 64 bootloaders
David S. Miller wrote:

>You can make SILO 64-bit, but it would just be a lot
>of work and would just result in a SILO that, unlike
>current SILO, would only work on UltraSPARC machines.
>
>There really is no advantage, and known disadvantages, to
>making SILO 64-bit.
>
>
If I have a system that is a Pure64 environment, I try to compile Silo,
it will not function. Since there is no support for 32 bit, how would I
be able to use it.

Isn't there a way to compile the programs necessary as 64bit but the
actual mbr or .b files depending on your architecture be 32 bit. I

In the case of Silo, it compiles, but when you run silo -f, when you
reboot, it Starts Silo, then gives, Program Terminiated in OBP. Which
now makes the computer useless, unless you have a 32 bit build of silo
standing around.

Also in the case of Silo, if you try to compile it on a modern tool
chain, the .b files it generates don't work, which I have reported
upstream. Modern toolchain = binutils 2.16.1, gcc 3.4.4, and glibc 2.3.5.

For the Sparc64 builds, I'm starting to look at using OBP to do the booting.

--
----
Jim Gifford
maillist@jg555.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-11 18:36    [W:0.165 / U:25.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site