Re: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64

From: Stephen McKay <smckay_at_internode.on.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:34:05 +1000
On Monday, 15th March 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote:

>On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:16:13PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>> The change to 64-bit time is essential, of course, but I don't understand
>> why it has to break backward compatibility.  Surely you just allocate a
>> bunch of new system call numbers (for the 64-bit variants) while keeping
>> the old ones (so 32-bit time calls still work) and bump the version
>> number of every library.  What else is going on?  (I don't have a Sparc
>> or I'd join your experiment.)
>
>No-one donated their time to do it that way.

I don't think that's relevant.  The question is whether it's the right way
to do it or not.  If what I've suggested is technically correct (and that's
what I believe) then that's how it should be done.

Backward compatibility is very important and can be ignored in only a few
cases (eg the switch from a.out to elf, or a port to a new architecture).

Also, this is the first I've heard of this since I have no interest in
sparc.  If the intention is to use the sparc conversion is as the template
for architectures I care about then now the first time I can contribute to
improving the process.

Stephen.
Received on Sun Mar 14 2004 - 16:34:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:47 UTC