Re: Pure 64 bootloaders

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David S. Miller wrote:

You can make SILO 64-bit, but it would just be a lot
of work and would just result in a SILO that, unlike
current SILO, would only work on UltraSPARC machines.

There really is no advantage, and known disadvantages, to
making SILO 64-bit.
If I have a system that is a Pure64 environment, I try to compile Silo, it will not function. Since there is no support for 32 bit, how would I be able to use it.

Isn't there a way to compile the programs necessary as 64bit but the actual mbr or .b files depending on your architecture be 32 bit. I

In the case of Silo, it compiles, but when you run silo -f, when you reboot, it Starts Silo, then gives, Program Terminiated in OBP. Which now makes the computer useless, unless you have a 32 bit build of silo standing around.

Also in the case of Silo, if you try to compile it on a modern tool chain, the .b files it generates don't work, which I have reported upstream. Modern toolchain = binutils 2.16.1, gcc 3.4.4, and glibc 2.3.5.

For the Sparc64 builds, I'm starting to look at using OBP to do the booting.

--
----
Jim Gifford
[email protected]

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux