On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 12:06, Leigh Brown wrote: > Albert Cahalan said: > > On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 22:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> Thankfully this is not a huge undertaking as the goal is not to create > >> an end to end 64 bit system. (Tho that could be done, but perhaps > >> that's a discussion for another day) > > > > It's not as if the Linux apps are all 32-bit. > > Due to the Alpha, Opteron, and Itanium, the > > code should all be clean. > > > > You'll be running a mix if you go this route, > > keeping both libraries in memory. Yuck. Some > > apps need to be 64-bit. For example, procps > > must be compiled as a 64-bit executable if > > you want to support a 64-bit kernel. > > Not true, at least on ppc64. I've run debian on my power3 > machine with a 64-bit kernel, and procps works fine.
This gives bad numbers: ps -eo nwchan,eip,esp,stackp,drs,dsiz,tsiz Also, anything over 1 TB will cause trouble. Maybe you've installed that much RAM, or at least swap. :-) Virtual address space counts. I'm not about to "fix" this, because doing so would hurt all the 32-bit users. > In fact, > everything runs fine. Sure? :-) > This begs the question, what will a ppc64 > Debian look like? I'd guess a 64-bit kernel, 32-bit and 64-bit > toolchains, .... ? Hopefully that /lib64 abomination is avoided. It's going to look pretty silly once we all stop using 32-bit apps. In the near-term, it makes compiling native (64-bit) libraries terribly difficult -- speaking from experiance on Red Hat's x86-64.
