Subject: Re: Bi-endian NetBSD/mips
To: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 03/23/1997 12:17:00
Matt Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
[Toru Nishimura wrote]
>>Although there is little possibility to have big-endian NetBSD/mips
>>in near future, it's surely wise to make NetBSD/mips endian neutral.
>This issue is similar to support native 64LP mode on R4000 (or better)
>and having an 32LP mode for applications. You'll need multiple syscall
>tables (similar to emulations) and syscall converters.
>I'd like to see both be possible.
I'm confused. Does "bi-endian" mean that /sys/arch mips supports
either big- or little-endian kernels, configured statically; or does
it mean support for running big-endian binaries on a machine with a
little-endian kernel(or vice-versa?)
The former is relatively straightforward. The second is *much* more
complicated, especially where ``untyped'' data crosses syscall
boundaries (e.g., ioctl()). I'm unsure whether simple syscall
converters can always DTRT there.
>BTW, did you know that ULTRIX actually run big-endian at the start
>of MIPS port?
Are you sure that was really ULTRIX, and not a mangled mipsCo OS?
Was it driving little-endian bus hardware?