[erlang-bugs] Erlang/OTP R11B-3 OpenBSD patches

Jon Olsson <>
Thu Feb 15 19:59:13 CET 2007


On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:30:34PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Jon Olsson writes:
>  > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:52:16PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>  > [snip]
>  > > While this may solve your immediate problem (64-bit mode code
>  > > on OpenBSD/SPARC64), it's inappropriate for other cases: What
>  > > if the user prefers to generate 32-bit code on OpenBSD? What
>  > > about other operating systems on SPARC64?
>  > 
>  > For the record:
>  > 
>  > core% uname -a                 
>  > OpenBSD xxx.yyy.com 4.0 GENERIC#999 sparc64
>  > core% gcc -m32 z.c       
>  > cc1: error: -m32 is not supported by this configuration
>  > 
>  > I guess this means OpenBSD doesn't support 32 bit code compilation
>  > on sparc64? Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Well, this particular gcc cannot generate 32-bit mode code.
> But that's an exception: gcc is usually configured as a
> "bi-arch" compiler that can generate either 32-bit or 64-bit
> code, and many 64-bit systems make 32-bit code the default.
> 
> It's certainly possible that OpenBSD on SPARC64 has completely
> banned all 32-bit mode code, making your change OK for OpenBSD.
> But even if they have done that, inferring 64-bitness from the
> C compiler instead of `uname` is a safer and more general solution.

I wasn't disagreeing with your changes/comment regarding sparc64 in
general, just stating the "OpenBSD world order".

Cheers,
-- 
Jon



More information about the erlang-bugs mailing list