Subject: Re: Bi-endian NetBSD/mips
To: Jonathan Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
Date: 03/24/1997 14:28:25
On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:17:00 -0800 Jonathan Stone wrote:
> 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.
Meaning we'll be able to run the IRIX version of NetScape on
NetBSD/pmax? Fingers crossed :-)