Darren J Moffat wrote: > I'm derailing this automatic approval. I want at least a fast-track > that explains why the asymetry between SPARC and x86 is actually useful > in addition to what Joe asked for.
Because we support x86 machines that don't implement 64 bit support? The same reason we ship a 32 bit and a 64 bit x86 kernel? > I think this should actually be a > full case rather than a fast-track given this would be a significant > architectural change. As Joe said the GNU part is irrelevant here what > is relevant is the change in direction. > Whether a particular executable is delivered as a 32 bit binary, 64 bit binary or shell script/java/python.... seems more of an implementation detail rather than an architecture change. I assume that the proposal here is to deliver 64 bit versions of these commands on sparc, and both 32 and 64 bit versions on x86. My question here is whether there is a plan about what to do w/ 32bit only (x86) systems in regards to whatever limit this change avoids.... - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
