Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

two architectures


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 SigFLUP

SigFLUP

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 24 October 2009 - 12:00 AM

It's weird, with x86_64 linux systems it seems we have two parallel architectures existing on the same computer. We have 32bit versions of binaries/libraries and 64bit versions. The way this works it's as if we could have two completely incompatible architectures. It's /usr/lib and /usr/lib32, it might as well be /usr/lib_ppc and /usr/lib_sparc! This isn't something that's out of design it's a bit of a hack- right? Kinda like apple's ppc and intel architectures, this was never a goal it just kinda happened. So how do we accommodate this? Linux's solution is to maintain independent library trees for each architecture, apple solution (it seems to me) is to encapsulate binaries/libraries in a format that holds both the ppc version and the intel version- I believe it's called omach, I could be mistaken. What do you people think of all this? Are there anymore examples of systems with parallel architectures that I'm not aware of?

#2 trevelyn

trevelyn

    mad 1337

  • Members
  • 125 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:18 AM

It's weird, with x86_64 linux systems it seems we have two parallel architectures existing on the same computer. We have 32bit versions of binaries/libraries and 64bit versions. The way this works it's as if we could have two completely incompatible architectures. It's /usr/lib and /usr/lib32, it might as well be /usr/lib_ppc and /usr/lib_sparc! This isn't something that's out of design it's a bit of a hack- right? Kinda like apple's ppc and intel architectures, this was never a goal it just kinda happened. So how do we accommodate this? Linux's solution is to maintain independent library trees for each architecture, apple solution (it seems to me) is to encapsulate binaries/libraries in a format that holds both the ppc version and the intel version- I believe it's called omach, I could be mistaken. What do you people think of all this? Are there anymore examples of systems with parallel architectures that I'm not aware of?


actually, mostly all of the programs on my 64bit SPARC are in 32bit userland. I just use the 64 cos that's all there is for SPARC!

It is quite strange, but so are computers in general.

#3 SigFLUP

SigFLUP

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 367 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:21 AM


It's weird, with x86_64 linux systems it seems we have two parallel architectures existing on the same computer. We have 32bit versions of binaries/libraries and 64bit versions. The way this works it's as if we could have two completely incompatible architectures. It's /usr/lib and /usr/lib32, it might as well be /usr/lib_ppc and /usr/lib_sparc! This isn't something that's out of design it's a bit of a hack- right? Kinda like apple's ppc and intel architectures, this was never a goal it just kinda happened. So how do we accommodate this? Linux's solution is to maintain independent library trees for each architecture, apple solution (it seems to me) is to encapsulate binaries/libraries in a format that holds both the ppc version and the intel version- I believe it's called omach, I could be mistaken. What do you people think of all this? Are there anymore examples of systems with parallel architectures that I'm not aware of?


actually, mostly all of the programs on my 64bit SPARC are in 32bit userland. I just use the 64 cos that's all there is for SPARC!

It is quite strange, but so are computers in general.


With intel (or at least how the gnu linker works), it doesn't seem to be so simple unfortunately :(

Edited by SigFLUP, 24 October 2009 - 01:33 AM.


#4 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 935 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 24 October 2009 - 02:21 AM

actually, mostly all of the programs on my 64bit SPARC are in 32bit userland. I just use the 64 cos that's all there is for SPARC!

It is quite strange, but so are computers in general.

nah linux distros just dont support for the actual sparc architecture just sparc64, you'd have to use bsd, its possible to run the linux kernel on sparc 32, but no major distro has a sparc 32 iso you'd have to do it your self. the programs are just 32bit because there is not a need yet for the extra 32 bits. in time more and more apps will be 64bit.

i believe its just the backwards comaptability that comes from not changing anything in the architecture just adding another 8, 16, or 32 bits. as i can run 16 bit programs on windows xp for 32bit you could probably run 16 bit programs on 64bit xp aswell. it just seems linux does not have backwards support in the libraries which is why they have seperate ones, for 64 and 32 bit.




BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!