Shawn wrote:
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 01:42, Terry Lambert wrote:
I do know that even if they remove the bridge, they are unlikely
to provide enough documentation to boot and run natively on the
hardware without having IBM code setting up the bus arbitration
and other bits that are currently
geeze terry would you mind unhijacking this topic?
The topic is
Should we have an suptr() and fuptr() to match suword() and fuword()?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
[tonnes of absolutly irrelevant stuff]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing
Julian Elischer wrote:
geeze terry would you mind unhijacking this topic?
The topic is
Should we have an suptr() and fuptr() to match suword() and fuword()?
I'm not the one who posted the question without changing the
subject line; please read the thread history.
In answer to your
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 12:08:29AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
In answer to your question, my answer is still:
How do you intend to deal with 32 and 64 bit address spaces
on the same machine, if all you have is one function for the
copyin and one for the copyout?.
Or is there no
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
Shawn wrote:
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 03:40, Terry Lambert wrote:
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
Adrian Chadd wrote:
Will any releases of MacOS X have the full 64 bit code?
Will Darwin ever be released with the full 64 bit code?
I don't know; you could always ask Jordan.
-- Terry
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 01:42, Terry Lambert wrote:
I do know that even if they remove the bridge, they are unlikely
to provide enough documentation to boot and run natively on the
hardware without having IBM code setting up the bus arbitration
and other bits that are currently undocumented.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:48:41PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
+ I'd like to have a suptr and fuptr to be able to save and read
+ user pointers in a machine independent manner..
+ at the moment ia need to know the size of a pointer and select the
+ appropriate 32 or 64 version.. It would jus tbe
Julian Elischer wrote:
I'd like to have a suptr and fuptr to be able to save and read
user pointers in a machine independent manner..
at the moment ia need to know the size of a pointer and select the
appropriate 32 or 64 version.. It would jus tbe another ENTRY files in
support.[sS]
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
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 03:40, Terry Lambert wrote:
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
I'd like to have a suptr and fuptr to be able to save and read
user pointers in a machine independent manner..
at the moment ia need to know the size of a pointer and select the
appropriate 32 or 64 version.. It would jus tbe another ENTRY files in
support.[sS] alongside teh appropriate sized
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:48:41PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
I'd like to have a suptr and fuptr to be able to save and read
user pointers in a machine independent manner..
Sounds good to me.
for i386 it would be an alternate name for fuword32() and suword32()
I'm not sure what it would
14 matches
Mail list logo
