Shaul Karl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SUN did it correctly, INTEL did not.
Geoff.
Could you elaborate why Intel did it wrong?
Take your pick:
1) Geoff is a big Sun fan.
2) If everybody did it the right way (i.e. the Sun way) we wouldn't
need hton{s,l}, ntoh{s,l}.
--
Oleg
Hi list,
Does anyone knew if there is a R-H
edition for Sun (for CPU Spark x2), newer then 6.2?
Dose a generic source code can be
compiled on this platform, or any other problems?
PS: not MandrakeLinux!!!
redbaron wrote:
Hi list,
Does anyone knew if there is a R-H edition for Sun (for CPU Spark x2),
newer then 6.2?
Redhat dropped support for SPARC at 6.2.
There were a couple of reasons for it, the biggest being that SUN4 and
SUN4C architecture has no buyers (only old machines in people
http://www.ultralinux.org/ - choose your distribution there (I heard SuSE 7.3
on Sparc is running very nicely, you can download the ISO's freely if I'm not
mistaken)
Hetz
On Thursday 30 May 2002 10:01, redbaron wrote:
Hi list,
Does anyone knew if there is a R-H edition for Sun (for CPU
Sort of. GCC is GCC, Glibc is Glibc and the Linux kernel is the Linux kernel.
There are some hardware differences, such as the size of integers and pointers
and the endianess of the data. SUN did it correctly, INTEL did not.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Bloomberg L.P., BFM
and the endianess of the data. SUN did it correctly, INTEL did not.
Could you elaborate why Intel did it wrong?
Since this question is probably more ancient and more heatedly debated than the
Temple Mount / Kharam-a-Sharif dispute, I suggest to cut it out before it
begins.
Dan.
