From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] Question about 64Bit kernel and 32Bit applications
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 19:49:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121002194921.5fb92a46@skate> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMJ=MEe-AfvoQ9tx5z3Wo2=w3tTbsorqCmcSp6trkxMmwpusZg@mail.gmail.com>
Ronny,
Please keep the list Cc'ed for Buildroot related discussions.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 19:43:46 +0200, Ronny Meeus wrote:
> The toolchain is available from cnusers.org.
> You need to register first but once registered (can take 1 day or so), go to:
> Downloads -> Downloads for registered users -> Octeon Software
> development kit -> SDK 2.3
> This is the complete octeon SDK including an installed toochain, Linux
> source code, example code, uboot etc for the Cavium reference boards.
> This is the direct link:
> http://www.cnusers.org/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=32&func=fileinfo&id=165
Ok, thanks, I'll have a look. However, if registration is required,
integrating the toolchain in Buildroot will be difficult.
> > And my opinion is that we should not try to support this. Unless I'm
> > missing something, it is a really bizarre use case, and adding support
> > for it would create an horrible additional complexity in Buildroot.
>
> In my opinion this usecase is not so bizarre. New applications can be
> compiled in 64Bit mode while legacy applications (coming from a 32Bit
> machine) can be compiled with the -mabi=n32 compiler option. If we
> would not do this and just compile in 64Bit mode, the impact in the
> application can be big (size of several types changes from 4 to 8
> bytes, impact on the size of data-types, alignment issues etc).
>
> What about the support to compile the userland with a different ABI
> than the kernel?
Sure. Do you know what changes we should do to make this possible?
> > The change you did for libfuse cannot be integrated: it is MIPS
> > specific, and we also have no way of specifying on a per-package basis
> > whether it should be built for 32 bits or 64 bits.
>
> I just included this code to give you an indication of the changes I
> needed to do ...
Sure, that's the way I took your code, I just highlighted the reason
why we couldn't accept this type of modification.
Thanks!
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-02 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-02 13:57 [Buildroot] Question about 64Bit kernel and 32Bit applications Ronny Meeus
2012-10-02 14:02 ` Thomas Petazzoni
[not found] ` <CAMJ=MEe-AfvoQ9tx5z3Wo2=w3tTbsorqCmcSp6trkxMmwpusZg@mail.gmail.com>
2012-10-02 17:49 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2012-10-02 18:39 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2012-10-02 19:21 ` Ronny Meeus
2012-10-02 20:46 ` Ronny Meeus
2012-10-03 15:18 ` Ronny Meeus
2012-10-04 9:08 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2012-10-04 10:56 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
2012-10-04 11:44 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121002194921.5fb92a46@skate \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox