Alan Coopersmith wrote: > David Korn wrote: > > 2. Assuming that a 64-bit address space is desired and that > > measurement shows little performance degradation, why > > wouldn't this be /bin/sh rather than having both the 32 and > > 64 bit version? > > Current versions of Solaris support only 64-bit processors on SPARC, > so it could be 64-bit only there,
That is not really usefull... think about plugin libraries - what happens if a vendor only provides a 32bit version and not a 64bit version ? That's one of the reasons why we ship both 32bit and 64bit versions of ksh93 on Solaris/SPARC (the other reason is that further usage of things like libshell/libcmd in commands like /usr/bin/bin/sleep, /usr/bin/test, /usr/bin/pwd etc. really doesn't require a 64bit version and for those small, standalone applications we use the 32bit libs instead). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
