In message: <20100322185331.ga88...@dragon.nuxi.org>
"David O'Brien" <obr...@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:50:32PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > : On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 07:24:23PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > So the issue isn't as cut and dried as you might think. There's
: > multiple different conventions used here in addition to your simple
: > example.
:
: I guess we'd have to take a poll to find out. Seems pretty cut and dried
: to me. COMPAT_FREEBSDn has an established context that does not match
: this new usage. That is - same bit'ness, compatibility with an older
: FreeBSD API for the same architecture. All the other COMPAT_* are for
: foreign ABI compatibility. COMPAT_LINUX32 possibly should have been
: "COMPAT_LINUX_X86_64". (or is it MI and is usable as-is for PowerPC
: and MIPS? I haven't looked that deeply at the code.)
no, COMPAT_LINUX32 is the right name. While we don't have PowerPC or
MIPS linux emulation bits in the kernel, the code if for dealing with
running 32-bit binaries on 64-bit machines. There may be a little
leakage of x86 specific goo here, but not a lot.
Warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
