On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:08:06PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Well, here's one - while we all know that C code which assumes a
> > pointer and int are the same size is buggy, it makes everything
> > substantially simpler if long and void* are the same size. That's true
> > for both normal LP64 and ILP32 models. Since n32 was mostly a
> > transitional tool (SGI was primarily interested in n64 as I understand
> > it), I imagine they wanted path of least damage...
> I see. But do we need the SGI's traditional n32 in Linux then? Having
> most experiences in the server world I'd vote for a pure 64-bit setup
> (with an optional ability to execute o32 stuff), but I understand there
> are people who consider it a waste of resources.
> Therefore, I believe we may choose another way and use an IP32 (if I
> encode it right) data model, where we have 32-bit ints and pointers for
> these who are short on memory, 64-bit longs for the maximum native
> precision (you don't choose long for the type for your favourite "i" loop
> counter unless you really need it) and an ability to have double-precision
> 128-bit long longs in the distant future (if needed).
> Any opinions?
My opinion is that N32 is good enough for people who are short on
space. We have too many MIPS ABIs already!
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer