Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:33:26 -0700 | From | Jim Gifford <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |