From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 14 17:34:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865BF16A4CE for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:34:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1ED643D39 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:34:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from smckay@internode.on.net) Received: from dungeon.home (ppp190-27.lns1.bne1.internode.on.net [150.101.190.27])i2F1Y6wn081102; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:04:06 +1030 (CST) Received: from dungeon.home (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dungeon.home (8.12.8p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2F1Y5ew004366; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:34:06 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from mckay) Message-Id: <200403150134.i2F1Y5ew004366@dungeon.home> To: current@freebsd.org References: <200403140716.i2E7GDKa007204@dungeon.home> <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org> from Kris Kennaway at "Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:09:44 +0000" Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:34:05 +1000 From: Stephen McKay X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:00:12 -0800 cc: Stephen McKay Subject: Re: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:34:09 -0000 On Monday, 15th March 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:16:13PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote: >> The change to 64-bit time is essential, of course, but I don't understand >> why it has to break backward compatibility. Surely you just allocate a >> bunch of new system call numbers (for the 64-bit variants) while keeping >> the old ones (so 32-bit time calls still work) and bump the version >> number of every library. What else is going on? (I don't have a Sparc >> or I'd join your experiment.) > >No-one donated their time to do it that way. I don't think that's relevant. The question is whether it's the right way to do it or not. If what I've suggested is technically correct (and that's what I believe) then that's how it should be done. Backward compatibility is very important and can be ignored in only a few cases (eg the switch from a.out to elf, or a port to a new architecture). Also, this is the first I've heard of this since I have no interest in sparc. If the intention is to use the sparc conversion is as the template for architectures I care about then now the first time I can contribute to improving the process. Stephen.