From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Is the SH64 (sub)arch actually meant to be a 64-bit arch? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: <23893.1408373226@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-ID: <23892.1408373226.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Cc: dhowells@redhat.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Does anyone know if the SH64 arch is actually meant to be a 64-bit arch? David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28727 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750906AbaHROrJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:47:09 -0400 From: David Howells Subject: Is the SH64 (sub)arch actually meant to be a 64-bit arch? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23892.1408373226.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: <23893.1408373226@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Message-ID: <20140818144706.rajBkS50qNh5u9x9v8FWb2IBwU1WWTdJ5kgeJD3n7K4@z> Does anyone know if the SH64 arch is actually meant to be a 64-bit arch? David