Re: Pure 64 bootloaders
From: Jim Gifford
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 11:34:55 EST
David S. Miller wrote:
You can make SILO 64-bit, but it would just be a lot
of work and would just result in a SILO that, unlike
current SILO, would only work on UltraSPARC machines.
There really is no advantage, and known disadvantages, to
making SILO 64-bit.
If I have a system that is a Pure64 environment, I try to compile Silo,
it will not function. Since there is no support for 32 bit, how would I
be able to use it.
Isn't there a way to compile the programs necessary as 64bit but the
actual mbr or .b files depending on your architecture be 32 bit. I
In the case of Silo, it compiles, but when you run silo -f, when you
reboot, it Starts Silo, then gives, Program Terminiated in OBP. Which
now makes the computer useless, unless you have a 32 bit build of silo
standing around.
Also in the case of Silo, if you try to compile it on a modern tool
chain, the .b files it generates don't work, which I have reported
upstream. Modern toolchain = binutils 2.16.1, gcc 3.4.4, and glibc 2.3.5.
For the Sparc64 builds, I'm starting to look at using OBP to do the booting.
--
----
Jim Gifford
maillist@xxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/