* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 5:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
@ 2003-12-11 5:48 ` Roland Dreier
2003-12-11 5:50 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 5:48 ` Nick Piggin
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Roland Dreier @ 2003-12-11 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Lee Irwin III; +Cc: linux-kernel
William> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which
William> is probably why this isn't merged etc. Applications
William> sensitive to it are uncommon.
William> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates
William> 0xC0000000 as the top of the process address space.
What about the 4G/4G split stuff for x86 (which is in 2.6 as well as
the RH EL 3 kernel)? It seems that would be just as big a violation
of the ABI...
- Roland
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 5:48 ` Roland Dreier
@ 2003-12-11 5:50 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-12-11 5:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roland Dreier; +Cc: linux-kernel
William> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which
William> is probably why this isn't merged etc. Applications
William> sensitive to it are uncommon.
William> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates
William> 0xC0000000 as the top of the process address space.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:48:11PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> What about the 4G/4G split stuff for x86 (which is in 2.6 as well as
> the RH EL 3 kernel)? It seems that would be just as big a violation
> of the ABI...
I oversimplified it. It only requires it to be at or above 0xC0000000,
so the 4/4 patches are compliant.
-- wli
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 5:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 5:48 ` Roland Dreier
@ 2003-12-11 5:48 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-11 6:30 ` David Lang
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2003-12-11 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Raul Miller
Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Ed Sweetman, Donald Maner, linux-kernel
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:33:39AM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
>
>>I thought highmem wasn't necesarily needed for memory <=2GB? Highmem
>>incurs some performance hits doesn't it and so the urge to move to it
>>with only 2GB is not very attractive. Anyways i'm just interested in if
>>that's the case or not since 2GB is easy to get to these days and i had
>>heard that highmem could be avoided passed the 1GB barrier.
>>
>
>You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>
>2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
>why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>
>Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
>top of the process address space.
>
At any rate, Raul, highmem shouldn't hurt your performance significantly
with the 2.6 kernel. If it does then send a note to the list.
Your other options are a different user/kernel split, or a 64-bit kernel,
both of which should have less overhead than highmem.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 5:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 5:48 ` Roland Dreier
2003-12-11 5:48 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2003-12-11 6:30 ` David Lang
2003-12-11 7:08 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-12-11 14:41 ` Raul Miller
4 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: David Lang @ 2003-12-11 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Lee Irwin III
Cc: Ed Sweetman, Nick Piggin, Donald Maner, Raul Miller, linux-kernel
Ed,
highmem isn't nessasary for mem<1G (actually 960M) on x86.
you are useing the opteron CPU, but was your kernel compiled for it
(x86064) or are you running an x86 kernel? (both will run, but the x86-64
kernel will give you better performance (including removing the need for
highmem)
David Lang
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:41:11 -0800
> From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
> To: Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>, Donald Maner <donjr@maner.org>,
> Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB
> ram.
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:33:39AM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> > I thought highmem wasn't necesarily needed for memory <=2GB? Highmem
> > incurs some performance hits doesn't it and so the urge to move to it
> > with only 2GB is not very attractive. Anyways i'm just interested in if
> > that's the case or not since 2GB is easy to get to these days and i had
> > heard that highmem could be avoided passed the 1GB barrier.
>
> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>
> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>
> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
> top of the process address space.
>
>
> -- wli
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 5:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-11 6:30 ` David Lang
@ 2003-12-11 7:08 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-12-11 7:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 13:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 14:41 ` Raul Miller
4 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-12-11 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Lee Irwin III, Ed Sweetman
Cc: Nick Piggin, Donald Maner, Raul Miller, linux-kernel
--William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote (on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 21:41:11 -0800):
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:33:39AM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
>> I thought highmem wasn't necesarily needed for memory <=2GB? Highmem
>> incurs some performance hits doesn't it and so the urge to move to it
>> with only 2GB is not very attractive. Anyways i'm just interested in if
>> that's the case or not since 2GB is easy to get to these days and i had
>> heard that highmem could be avoided passed the 1GB barrier.
>
> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>
> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>
> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
> top of the process address space.
You mean like we place the stack in the "ABI compliant place"?
Yeah, right ;-)
M.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 7:08 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2003-12-11 7:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 7:22 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-12-11 13:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-12-11 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh
Cc: Ed Sweetman, Nick Piggin, Donald Maner, Raul Miller, linux-kernel
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
>> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
>> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
>> top of the process address space.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:08:38PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> You mean like we place the stack in the "ABI compliant place"?
> Yeah, right ;-)
No specific address is ever cited as a requirement for stack placement;
stack immediately below text is merely given as a "typical arrangement".
i.e. "Although applications may control their memory assignments, the
typical arrangement appears below: [diagram and other bits]" It then
goes on to say, "Processes, therefore, shount _not_ depend on finding
their stack at a particular virtual address."
The process address space boundary is, however, stated as a requirement:
"the reserved area shall not consume more than 1GB of the address space."
-- wli
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 7:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
@ 2003-12-11 7:22 ` Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-12-11 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Lee Irwin III
Cc: Ed Sweetman, Nick Piggin, Donald Maner, Raul Miller, linux-kernel
>>> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>>> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
>>> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>>> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
>>> top of the process address space.
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:08:38PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> You mean like we place the stack in the "ABI compliant place"?
>> Yeah, right ;-)
>
> No specific address is ever cited as a requirement for stack placement;
> stack immediately below text is merely given as a "typical arrangement".
> i.e. "Although applications may control their memory assignments, the
> typical arrangement appears below: [diagram and other bits]" It then
> goes on to say, "Processes, therefore, shount _not_ depend on finding
> their stack at a particular virtual address."
>
> The process address space boundary is, however, stated as a requirement:
> "the reserved area shall not consume more than 1GB of the address space."
;-)
OK, fair enough ... it doesn't actually break anything though ;-)
m.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 7:08 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-12-11 7:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
@ 2003-12-11 13:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-12-11 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: matti.aarnio
Cc: mbligh, Ed Sweetman, Nick Piggin, Donald Maner, Raul Miller,
linux-kernel
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
>> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
>> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
>> top of the process address space.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:08:38PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> You mean like we place the stack in the "ABI compliant place"?
> Yeah, right ;-)
> M.
Something odd is happening here; this is the second time I've gotten this
message. I suspect something is wrong with smtp-out2.blueyonder.co.uk
In fact, other messages in this thread are getting resent, too.
-- wli
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 5:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-11 7:08 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2003-12-11 14:41 ` Raul Miller
2003-12-11 14:53 ` Raul Miller
2003-12-11 15:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
4 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Raul Miller @ 2003-12-11 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:33:39AM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> > I thought highmem wasn't necesarily needed for memory <=2GB? Highmem
> > incurs some performance hits doesn't it and so the urge to move to it
> > with only 2GB is not very attractive. Anyways i'm just interested in if
> > that's the case or not since 2GB is easy to get to these days and i had
> > heard that highmem could be avoided passed the 1GB barrier.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:41:11PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>
> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>
> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
> top of the process address space.
Apologies if I'm asking about the obvious, but...
[1] isn't 0xC0000000 at 3GB?
[2] Even if ELF did restrict a user process to 1GB (which I'm pretty
sure it doesn't), wouldn't the kernel still be able to manage 2GB of
user memory?
Probably my real question is: "what's this about 2:2 split patches"?
Basically, I thought "linux supports 2GB ram" had been been the case
since the dark ages. It's hard for me to comprehend how highmem, or 64
bit cpus, could have much to do with a 1GB limit.
[In my fantasies, I was thinking that the system came up with only 1GB of
the memory easily usable, and that the lack of support for my hardware
meant that it couldn't be properly reconfigured. But I recognize that
I haven't spent the time researching this to see if in fact this is
the case.]
I am in the process of bringing up an cross compilation environment for
amd64 -- I need to do that anyways -- and I'll try building a real 64
bit kernel to see if that helps any. If that doesn't, I guess I'll try
a couple 4G highmem kernels (one 64 bit, one 32 bit). If nothing else,
that will eat up some time...
Thanks,
--
Raul Miller
moth@magenta.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 14:41 ` Raul Miller
@ 2003-12-11 14:53 ` Raul Miller
2003-12-11 15:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Raul Miller @ 2003-12-11 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, I wrote:
> since the dark ages. It's hard for me to comprehend how highmem, or 64
> bit cpus, could have much to do with a 1GB limit.
[Well, unless my motherboard really has a problem caching memory above
1GB. But that seems unlikely, since it's the CPU which is acting as
the memory controller. In any event, if this is actually the issue,
shouldn't the kernel issue a warning message, about why it's ignoring
the rest of the memory?]
Thanks again,
--
Raul Miller
moth@magenta.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 14:41 ` Raul Miller
2003-12-11 14:53 ` Raul Miller
@ 2003-12-11 15:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 16:17 ` moth
2003-12-11 19:26 ` Where did the ELF spec go? (SCO website?) Rob Landley
1 sibling, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-12-11 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Raul Miller; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:41:11PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
>> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
>> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
>> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
>> top of the process address space.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Apologies if I'm asking about the obvious, but...
> [1] isn't 0xC0000000 at 3GB?
It is.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [2] Even if ELF did restrict a user process to 1GB (which I'm pretty
> sure it doesn't), wouldn't the kernel still be able to manage 2GB of
> user memory?
You have it backward. The SVR4/i386 ELF ABI specification is requiring
userspace to be granted at least 3GB of address space.
This does not necessarily present a restriction for the kernel;
consider task gates (mingo did it by hand).
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Probably my real question is: "what's this about 2:2 split patches"?
> Basically, I thought "linux supports 2GB ram" had been been the case
> since the dark ages. It's hard for me to comprehend how highmem, or 64
> bit cpus, could have much to do with a 1GB limit.
You should probably ignore this thread. It's probably not relevant to
you.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [In my fantasies, I was thinking that the system came up with only 1GB of
> the memory easily usable, and that the lack of support for my hardware
> meant that it couldn't be properly reconfigured. But I recognize that
> I haven't spent the time researching this to see if in fact this is
> the case.]
Highmem support gets you this on ia32. Other architectures can support it
with less overhead.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I am in the process of bringing up an cross compilation environment for
> amd64 -- I need to do that anyways -- and I'll try building a real 64
> bit kernel to see if that helps any. If that doesn't, I guess I'll try
> a couple 4G highmem kernels (one 64 bit, one 32 bit). If nothing else,
> that will eat up some time...
If you have such a cpu why are you bothering with highmem (or wondering
if > 2GB is supported)?
-- wli
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 15:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
@ 2003-12-11 16:17 ` moth
2003-12-11 16:35 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 19:26 ` Where did the ELF spec go? (SCO website?) Rob Landley
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: moth @ 2003-12-11 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 07:00:11AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> You should probably ignore this thread. It's probably not relevant to
> you.
Ok, thanks. My mistake.
> > [In my fantasies, I was thinking that the system came up with only 1GB of
> > the memory easily usable, and that the lack of support for my hardware
> > meant that it couldn't be properly reconfigured. But I recognize that
> > I haven't spent the time researching this to see if in fact this is
> > the case.]
>
> Highmem support gets you this on ia32. Other architectures can support it
> with less overhead.
Are there docs on this?
> > I am in the process of bringing up an cross compilation environment for
> > amd64 -- I need to do that anyways -- and I'll try building a real 64
> > bit kernel to see if that helps any. If that doesn't, I guess I'll try
> > a couple 4G highmem kernels (one 64 bit, one 32 bit). If nothing else,
> > that will eat up some time...
>
> If you have such a cpu why are you bothering with highmem (or wondering
> if > 2GB is supported)?
I'm not wondering if > 2GB is supported. I'm trying to get 2GB
to work (and I'm having a problem -- perhaps because I believe
Documentation/memory.txt doesn't cover the issues I'm facing).
I've not yet bothered with highmem, but I will if building a 64 bit
kernel doesn't get me access to 2GB.
Does that answer your question?
Thanks,
--
Raul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: PROBLEM: Linux 2.6.0-test11 only lets me use 1GB out of 2GB ram.
2003-12-11 16:17 ` moth
@ 2003-12-11 16:35 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-12-11 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: moth; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:17:41AM -0500, moth@magenta.com wrote:
> I'm not wondering if > 2GB is supported. I'm trying to get 2GB
> to work (and I'm having a problem -- perhaps because I believe
> Documentation/memory.txt doesn't cover the issues I'm facing).
> I've not yet bothered with highmem, but I will if building a 64 bit
> kernel doesn't get me access to 2GB.
> Does that answer your question?
You should be fine with a 64-bit kernel.
-- wli
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Where did the ELF spec go? (SCO website?)
2003-12-11 15:00 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 16:17 ` moth
@ 2003-12-11 19:26 ` Rob Landley
2003-12-11 19:44 ` William Lee Irwin III
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2003-12-11 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Lee Irwin III; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thursday 11 December 2003 09:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:41:11PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> You're probably thinking of 2:2 split patches.
> >> 2:2 splits are at least technically ABI violations, which is probably
> >> why this isn't merged etc. Applications sensitive to it are uncommon.
> >> Yes, the SVR4 i386 ELF/ABI spec literally mandates 0xC0000000 as the
> >> top of the process address space.
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Apologies if I'm asking about the obvious, but...
> > [1] isn't 0xC0000000 at 3GB?
>
> It is.
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [2] Even if ELF did restrict a user process to 1GB (which I'm pretty
> > sure it doesn't), wouldn't the kernel still be able to manage 2GB of
> > user memory?
>
> You have it backward. The SVR4/i386 ELF ABI specification is requiring
> userspace to be granted at least 3GB of address space.
Where does one get a copy of the SVR4 spec these days? The link I could track
down went to http://www.sco.com/developer/devspecs/ which just ain't there no
more.
And no, not because of a "DDOS". There isn't one. SCO's website IP moved
from 216.250.128.13 to 216.250.128.20, and it's up at the new IP right now.
They didn't get the new DNS record propogated on time. Rookie mistake...
But looking at http.://216.250.128.20/developer/devspecs redirects you to the
/developer page. The devspecs page went away...
Is this mirrored somewhere?
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Where did the ELF spec go? (SCO website?)
2003-12-11 19:26 ` Where did the ELF spec go? (SCO website?) Rob Landley
@ 2003-12-11 19:44 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-12-11 20:25 ` Richard B. Johnson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-12-11 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Landley; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thursday 11 December 2003 09:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> You have it backward. The SVR4/i386 ELF ABI specification is requiring
>> userspace to be granted at least 3GB of address space.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 01:26:32PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> Where does one get a copy of the SVR4 spec these days? The link I
> could track down went to http://www.sco.com/developer/devspecs/ which
> just ain't there no more.
> And no, not because of a "DDOS". There isn't one. SCO's website IP moved
> from 216.250.128.13 to 216.250.128.20, and it's up at the new IP right now.
> They didn't get the new DNS record propogated on time. Rookie mistake...
> But looking at http.://216.250.128.20/developer/devspecs redirects
> you to the /developer page. The devspecs page went away...
> Is this mirrored somewhere?
I'm looking at a dead tree copy. I have no idea if it's online or not.
Also, it's largely an ELF ABI spec; I'm not sure how/why SVR4 got into
the picture, but its name is on there.
-- wli
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Where did the ELF spec go? (SCO website?)
2003-12-11 19:44 ` William Lee Irwin III
@ 2003-12-11 20:25 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-12-12 11:11 ` Johannes Stezenbach
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-12-11 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: William Lee Irwin III; +Cc: Rob Landley, linux-kernel
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thursday 11 December 2003 09:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> You have it backward. The SVR4/i386 ELF ABI specification is requiring
> >> userspace to be granted at least 3GB of address space.
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 01:26:32PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Where does one get a copy of the SVR4 spec these days? The link I
> > could track down went to http://www.sco.com/developer/devspecs/ which
> > just ain't there no more.
> > And no, not because of a "DDOS". There isn't one. SCO's website IP moved
> > from 216.250.128.13 to 216.250.128.20, and it's up at the new IP right now.
> > They didn't get the new DNS record propogated on time. Rookie mistake...
> > But looking at http.://216.250.128.20/developer/devspecs redirects
> > you to the /developer page. The devspecs page went away...
> > Is this mirrored somewhere?
>
> I'm looking at a dead tree copy. I have no idea if it's online or not.
>
> Also, it's largely an ELF ABI spec; I'm not sure how/why SVR4 got into
> the picture, but its name is on there.
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/elf.html
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.22 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread