[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Pure 64 bootloaders
From: Joe Bob Spamtest <>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:02:03 -0700

> David S. Miller wrote:
> >>agreed -- as far as i'm concerned the 32 bit libraries are there for
> >>compatibility's sake and should be in /lib/compat/<subarch> instead of
> >>/lib. the native libraries should be in /lib instead of /lib64. lib64
> >>should just go away!
> >
> > 64-bit isn't any more "native" than 32-bit on some 64-bit platforms.
> > 32-bit is the default and most desirable userland binary format on
> > sparc64 for example. So 32-bit programs on sparc64 are as "native" as
> > 64-bit ones might be considered.
> that's true, i had forgotten about the sparc64 case. it really does slow
> down tremendously when used in pure 64 bit mode

PPC64 is the same, as well as a few others are likely to
be in this boat as well. The only known exception where
64-bit is a true win is x86_64.

> i would imagine this not to be the case for most architectures though.
> possibly hppa is the same way. anyone with mips64 and ppc64 hardware out
> there have any input?

See above.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-13 00:14    [W:0.040 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site