Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:12:51 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fuword(), suword(), etc. Message-ID: <20030725061250.GG41445@skywalker.creative.net.au> In-Reply-To: <3F1F9B93.3C1D2FAB@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307231441410.60197-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20030723221109.GA790@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <3F1F9B93.3C1D2FAB@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > for i386 it would be an alternate name for fuword32() and suword32() > > > I'm not sure what it would be on other architectures.... > > > > fuword64 and suword64. PowerPC is like i386. > > PPC 970 explicitly supports mixed mode programming between user > and kernel, as do most other 64 bit processors, in order to support > legacy applications. > > It's actually unlikely that IBM will ever release enough documentation > to get a full 64 bit Linux running on a PPC 970, let alone FreeBSD, > and that you will be stuck with a 32 bit kernel that runs 64 bit apps, > and which talks to IBM's internal undocumented glue on the bottom end > while running in a virtual environment, such that the interfaces to > that glue are not exposed in the source code they publish. Will any releases of MacOS X have the "full 64 bit" code? Will Darwin ever be released with the "full 64 bit" code? Adrian -- Adrian Chadd <angryskul> learning is bad <adrian@FreeBSD.org> <angryskul> it just makes the people around you dumber (angryskul == alfred@irc) <angryskul> :(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030725061250.GG41445>