Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SigFLUP

two architectures

4 posts in this topic

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0