Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 01:16:25 -0700 From: pallen@donut.ugcs.caltech.edu To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: request for some information amd64 status Message-ID: <20051009081625.GA35013@philemon.async.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <200510041724.37210.peter@wemm.org> References: <20050929184109.GE8586@philemon.async.caltech.edu> <200510041724.37210.peter@wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well at least one nit involved the boot-strapping. It appears that when you exec an i386 binary, the kernel insists on using /libexec/ld-elf32.so.1 which furtuer depends on a hints file written by the amd64 native ldconfig run with the -32 flag. The next nit came up when running a source build within the jail. The build system inspects hw.machine_arch and gets back amd64. This raises an interesting question: namely that there is nothing similar to the "linux32" (on linux) command or is there? -Paul >From Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 05:24:36PM -0700: > On Thursday 29 September 2005 11:41 am, Paul Allen wrote: > > 1) Is it possible to build 32-bit binaries yet? > > Yes, but only if you're inside a 32 bit chroot or jail, or if you're > willing to go to a lot of pain with compiler flags and switches. > > > 2) Is it possible to run a FreeBSD-4/386 jail inside an amd64 > > environment? > > Yes. We do this at work, but I don't recall if there were changes > needed. > > -- > Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051009081625.GA35013>