Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-31 Thread John Polstra
Julian Elischer wrote: > One presumes that the BSDI binaries fail without the diff? :-) Yes, that's been confirmed by lots of people, myself included. John --- John Polstra j...@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc.Seatt

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-31 Thread Julian Elischer
One presumes that the BSDI binaries fail without the diff? :-) julian On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Thomas Stephens wrote: > John Polstra wrote: > >In article <199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com>, > >Matthew Dillon wrote: > >> > >> Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet? >

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-31 Thread John Polstra
Thomas Stephens wrote: > I tried your fix this morning, and it's worked without a problem > so far. I've just upgraded the world (had only built a kernel > earlier), and haven't done any rigorous testing, but it looks good. > I use the AT&T ksh for BSD/OS as my standard shell, which should be > a

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-31 Thread Thomas Stephens
John Polstra wrote: >In article <199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com>, >Matthew Dillon wrote: >> >> Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet? > >Not as far as I know. I was hoping that somebody who cared about >BSD/OS compatibility would pick up the description of the fix

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread John Polstra
In article <199903302319.paa43...@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > Has anyone tried implementing the %ebx solution yet? Not as far as I know. I was hoping that somebody who cared about BSD/OS compatibility would pick up the description of the fix, test it, and submit diffs

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread Thomas Stephens
David Greenman wrote: > BSD/OS compatibility for v2.0 static binaries can be had again with a >few modifications. Someone with access to BSD/OS v2.0 binaries, time, and >appropriate knowledge, just needs to make them. > The brokeness actually comes from a design screwup that BSDI made in >the

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread Matthew Dillon
:> So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in :>order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two :>shouldn't be mutually exclusive. : :Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the :expense of those few people who are

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread Brian Handy
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Brian Handy wrote: > [Grumbling about BSDI compatibility] I take all that back. Well, all except the part about grumbling about my own network here, I'm just feeling grumpy and took it out on random passerby. :-) Happy trails, Brian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord..

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread Brian Handy
> So, I'm curious, why is it that we needed to break BSDI compatibility in >order to support large memory configurations. It would seem that the two >shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Or, perhaps, we broke BSDI compatibility for a lot of people (?) at the expense of those few people who are runnin

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread David Greenman
> Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because >BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because >FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that "power to serve" when it died >horribly on newer servers :) > So, the good news is, we can now support larg

Re: support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread Julian Elischer
Kelly Yancey wrote: > > Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because > BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because > FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that "power to serve" when it died > horribly on newer servers :) > So, the good news

support for larger memory

1999-03-30 Thread Kelly Yancey
Time and time again we have all seen people get bit in the rear because BSDI compatibility was broken. Broken for a good cause, mind you, because FreeBSD seemed to lose a little of that "power to serve" when it died horribly on newer servers :) So, the good news is, we can now support large me