On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:47 PM, brian m. carlson < [email protected]> wrote:
> If you insist on your program being 64-bit, yes, you'll have to do that; > only a very limited number of libraries in the archive on sparc have > 64-bit versions. Most programs do not benefit from using 64-bit code; > in fact, it can make them slower[0]. The easiest thing is to just > compile it as 32-bit. The sparc32 program can help here if configure is > detecting the system as 64-bit. > > So, while waiting for the response I downloaded the openssl src and built it by doing this #> ./Configure linux64-sparcv9 It built it and stuff but I see no libssl.so anywhere. Where did the libs go? Do I need to use a different make target to build this or do I need a different package like openssl-dev?. Weird! > [0] The only reason this isn't the case for amd64 is because 64-bit mode > doubles the number of registers. It's true for 64-bit versions of > virtually every other architecture, though. > > So I'm not entirely clear on what you just said. Did you mean to say that this IS true for amd64 or did you mean to say it's true for sparc64 and hence almost all libs available for Sparc64 are actually 32-bit but in all other cases, building software as 64-bit actually does improve performance? Also, I have no idea what sparc32 is. Will have to do research but according to the community of this particular software AND the authors as well, this software performs far better in a 64-bit environment/arch than in 32-bit. So, I am relatively insistent on building it as 64-bit although IF all other libraries it's using (due to the fact that my system is essentially running 64-bit Linux with 32-bit libraries, then I won't see any performance improvement? Thanks
