From owner-freebsd-sparc Mon Jan 4 09:38:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09581 for freebsd-sparc-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:38:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09561 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:38:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (haldjas.folklore.ee [172.17.2.1] (may be forged)) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.8.8/8.8.4) with SMTP id TAA15106; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:37:27 +0200 (EET) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:37:27 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Alfred Perlstein cc: sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: arch questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > I was under the impression that the goal of a sparc64 port was a 64 kernel > AND a 64 bit userland. It seems that all the ports i've seen have a 64bit > kernel and a 32 bit userland. (solaris 7, linux, netbsd (when it's > released)) I hope this is so also with FreeBSD. > > I'm unsure i see the benifit of doing this because: > > a) the insturctions stay at 32bits wide, so we don't have much bloat to > worry about, and we don't incur much penalty for using larger ints. (if we > choose to use 64 bit ints) > If possible, we should IMHO try to use the same lengths for int, long, short, etc. on all 64 bit archidectures. That is, the same sizes on Alpha, UltraSparc and MIPS (64bit MIPS, that is). [snip] > If your userland is 32bit, then it's much easier not to have to port that > huge section of code. The only reason it might help us is that since > intel is 32bit, it may ease the porting by a very small margin, but this > doesn't seem to be worth the performance losses i mentioned above, > especially in our case when we don't have ANY sparc bits at this point in > time. > > am i missing something? I would like to aim for a 64bit userland to max > out the performance of the work. You definately are missing the part that with alpha, we already are migrating the userland to 64 bits. > > questions? comment? corrections? > I never thought there was any question about teh bitness of FreeBSD on UltraSparc... > thanks, > Alfred Perlstein - Programmer, HotJobs Inc. - www.hotjobs.com > -- There are operating systems, and then there's FreeBSD. > -- http://www.freebsd.org/ 3.0-current > Sander There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future - all these are just illusions. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message