Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:34:05 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> To: current@freebsd.org Cc: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> Subject: Re: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64 Message-ID: <200403150134.i2F1Y5ew004366@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org> from Kris Kennaway at "Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:09:44 %2B0000" References: <p060204f5bc750679b827@[128.113.24.47]> <200403140716.i2E7GDKa007204@dungeon.home> <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403150134.i2F1Y5ew004366>