On 01/22/16 01:23 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 32-bit support in OpenIndiana...:
On the other hand, to properly utilize the attractive feature of
transparently supporting both
32-bit and 64-bit systems via isaexec,
When there was a giant corporation funding development, isaexec was a neat
feature. Not required to support 32 bit or 64 bit executables,
but neat.
It was really only required for binaries that deal with kernel structures
and had to vary based on which kernel was running. For everything else it
was just a neat way to choose which version to run when both could.
It's perfectly possible to support both 32 bit and 64 executables on
a system where all (or most) of the OS executables are only 64 bit.
That's exactly how Linux does it. I can explain if needed, but I think
you understand that.
Alexander has already said that many of the OS *libraries* would be
provided in both 64 bit and 32 bit variants. That makes it possible to
continue to run your own 32 bit software on a 64 bit system -- you just
need to ensure that the library dependencies are present.
That's also the model Solaris is moving to, so adopting it lets you use changes
from the default branches of the Userland & X11 gates that are still being
published for Solaris.
https://blogs.oracle.com/alanc/entry/lp64_bit_by_bit
https://blogs.oracle.com/observatory/entry/solaris_11_3_progress_on
In my opinion, providing 32 bit binaries along side 64 bit binaries on
a 64 bit system is most often just pointless. There are exceptions, for
things like firefox where external binary-only plugins
And those cases are reducing over time, as Firefox is EOL'ing plugin support
later this year:
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-firefox/
-alan-
_______________________________________________
openindiana-discuss mailing list
openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
