[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS linux

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: CVS linux
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 05:16:31 +0200
Cc: Keith M Wesolowski <>, "Kevin D. Kissell" <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 11:37:44PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > Btw, an old experience repeats - some of the code was identical except
> > inline assembler using addu etc. for 32-bit and daddu etc. for 64-bit.
> > I rewrote that stuff to use C for this arithmetic.  The result - less
> > inline assembler, more readable code and a file that's identical for
> > both 32-bit and 64-bit.
>  Well, whatever is plain C code (or should be such) should be identical,
> indeed, but macros will differ as will low-level assembly.  Then add
> 64-bit specific options and you get yet more complication. 

You're right, we've got a good bit of assembler code that should just be
C.  So I rewrote some of the code to C.

>  I hope `uname -m' will continue to report the correct architecture and
> that ARCH will be correctly handled (i.e. "mips" selecting a 32-bit build
> and "mips64" a 64-bit one) -- have you considered this?

Not intend to change the behaviour of uname.  It actually changed in CVS,
for now consider that a bug ...

We should consider changing the behaviour though.  A machine type of
mips64 broke lots of software.  Of course that was all 32-bit softare but
it raises the question if returning mips64 is really a good idea?

As for choosing a 32-bit vs. 64-bit kernel, that's now a menu point and can
be choosen like every other config option.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>