Greg Lindahl wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:28:09PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > I guess you are talking about the work already contributed by > > Alexandre Oliva. The "simple solution" mentioned before was a > > part of it. The relocation handling is still horrible. > > I suppose I should say that "not as bad as before" means "can mostly > generate working n32/n64 programs", not that it is any less horrible.
With 'horrible', I meant the binutils implementation, not the resulting code. :-) > > > By the way, the 32-bit kernel could have an N32 mode added; it's > > > fairly straightforward to merge the bits currently in the 64-bit > > > kernel that you'd need. You'd also need a very modern glibc. > > > > It definitely can't. You are missing the fact that N32 has 64bit > > register widths. > > Why does that make a difference? I suppose that I don't know the > details of what mode things like the context switch routines run in. > >From looking at the code, it would seem that it's the 32-bit mode in > the 32-bit kernel. What anwers your question. N32 will need e.g. to save&restore 64bit wide registers, does syscalls with 64bit registers and so on. A 32bit kernel doesn't know how to handle this. Thiemo
