Paul Edwards wrote:
>I don't want to use -m64 because that uses the
>64-bit registers for everything, but I wish to produce
>compact modules using only 32-bit registers and
>pointers.
OK, so let's dig into this a bit. Have you taken one or more of your
programs and compared -m31 and -m64 variants?
Russ Herrold wrote:
>It may turn out that we (ClefOS) need to fork and offer two
>variants
I guess I'd call them "streams" rather than "forks."
For what it's worth, Red Hat seems to offer at least 3 major streams now:
Fedora (their "community" release), RHEL Structure A, and RHEL. The RHEL
Struct
Paul,
Did you read the Linux ABI document that I linked to you?
Joe
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Paul Edwards wrote:
> Hi Philipp.
>
> Which CPU instruction do you think a -m31 compile
> produces that won't work in AM64 mode when
> malloc() starts returning addresses between 2 GiB
> and 4
Hi Philipp.
Which CPU instruction do you think a -m31 compile
produces that won't work in AM64 mode when
malloc() starts returning addresses between 2 GiB
and 4 GiB? I can't think of any. As far as I know a
-m24, -m31 or -m32 would produce identical code
if those options were available. People wou
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Ted Rodriguez-Bell wrote:
> Suse just released a new kernel-default-4.4.131-94.29-1
> package for SLES 12SP3 with some kernel security fixes. If
> you use XFS, don't install it!
My condolences
There has been an (at least) four way finger pointing contest
raging for the last
Suse just released a new kernel-default-4.4.131-94.29-1 package for SLES 12SP3
with some kernel security fixes. If you use XFS, don't install it!
I installed it and the system wouldn't mount an existing XFS filesystem. Our
friendly Suse engineer (thanks, Roberto!) told me that it's a regression
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Timothy Sipples wrote:
> There's a new dual build/delivery approach that Red Hat has
> introduced with RHEL 7.5. RHEL 7.5 offers an alternate build
> stream called "Structure A,"
One reason for Neale's questions in part are that the ClefOS
7.5 build has been being bitten by t
On Wednesday, 05/23/2018 at 05:08 GMT, Philipp Kern
wrote:
> On 2018-05-23 08:57, Paul Edwards wrote:
> > I would think that most ELF32 programs are already
> > able to use the full 4 GiB address space without
> > needing a recompile. malloc() can start returning
> > addresses in the 2 GiB - 4 Gi
On 2018-05-23 08:57, Paul Edwards wrote:
I would think that most ELF32 programs are already
able to use the full 4 GiB address space without
needing a recompile. malloc() can start returning
addresses in the 2 GiB - 4 GiB range.
Traditionally this is untrue on s390 because -m31 produces 31bit c
I believe such an approach might break C semantics regarding
pointer addition?
In a 32-bit address space (where presumably only 32-bits of the
register are used to address a value) the addition of a pointer past-the-end
(or prior to the start) of an addressable object is undefined. C compilers
>
> Hi Timothy.
>
Great questions.
I don't want to use -m64 because that uses the
64-bit registers for everything, but I wish to produce
compact modules using only 32-bit registers and
pointers.
I would think that most ELF32 programs are already
able to use the full 4 GiB address space without
n
11 matches
Mail list logo
