> Quoting Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [openib-general] 32-bit build for ppc64 is required > > On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 16:29 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Quoting Stefan Roscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Subject: Re: 32-bit build for ppc64 is required > > > > > > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > Quoting Stefan Roscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Subject: 32-bit build for ppc64 is required > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > after building the latest ofed build package we recognized that on > > > > > PPC64 only > > > > > 64-bit libaries were build. > > > > > Because we have customers using older userpace apllications which are > > > > > certified for 32-bit we think additional 32bit support is a > > > > > requirement for 64bit builds. > > > > > > > > > > If OFED 1.2 supports 32 bit on ppc64, we have to change the install > > > > > directory.I would suggest to install 32-bit binaries into > > > > > /usr/local/ofed/bin32 directory. So no changes on current naming > > > > > conventions > > > > > has to be done.The libaries are installed in the /usr/local/ofed/lib > > > > > directory. > > > > > > > > The standard practice is to install 64 bit libraries under prefix/lib64 > > > > and 32 bit libraries under prefix/lib. Why would PPC64 be any different? > > > > > > I think you missunderstand my post. The directory for 32/64bit libaries > > > shouldbe prefix/lib and prefix/lib64 respectively. > > > But current ofed1.2 I saw only prefix/lib64 directory, ie 64bit libs > > > only. > > > > Well, this is not by design: AFAIK on x86_64 both types of libraries > > are installed. > > > > > > I do not think we need 32 bit binaries at all, and there's no other > > > > package > > > > I'm aware of that uses "bin32". > > > > > > We have customers that still use 32-bit userspace applications. > > > It would be beneficial for them if they can obtain 32bit libs and execs > > > from > > > ofed1.2 in order to run their applications without recompiling them, > > > because > > > for some 32-bit applications recompiling is not an option. > > > > 32 bit libraries are needed for users to run 32 applications. > > > > But I still do not see how installing 32 bit binaries alongside the 64 > > bit ones is useful, and I do not think other packages provide this option, > > so maybe we shouldn't, either. > > The choice of 32/64 bit default is done on a per arch basis. With > x86_64/i386, the increased number of CPU registers in 64bit mode > outweighs the increased code bloat that goes along with 64bit mode. On > PPC, no such register benefit exists for 64bit mode. As such, 32bit > apps on PPC are faster than the equivalent 64bit apps up to the point at > which a 4GB address space becomes a problem. Correspondingly, the > default binaries on PPC are 32bit, and only those that *need* to be > 64bit are. While a customer's application may need >4GB address space, > certainly all the ibutils, diags, opensm, etc. do not. As a result, we > compile all of those utilities as 32bit by default on PPC. We also ship > all the libs as both 32/64bit so users can select the appropriate > environment for their particular application (with the exception of > dapl, which doesn't support 32bit and for which I filed a bug around the > time of OFED 1.1).
So, what you suggest is - build 2 types of libraries, but on PPC make binaries 32 bit? That's easy - do others agree to this approach? Another option is to build binaries with whatever type of binary gcc without extra flags generates by default. -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
