Subject: Re: ancillary data alignment and binary backward
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Matt Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/28/2000 09:07:44
At 05:16 AM 2/28/00 , email@example.com wrote:
> >> hmm... so, if we run sparc32 /sbin/route on sparc64 kernel,
> >> /sbin/route will choke due to hardcoded sizeof(long) alignment.
> >well, it *should*. note that it goes through an emulation layer
> >and we're gonna need to special case a Lot of ioctl's here for this
> >to work sanely (or, push part of this support out of compat/netbsd32).
> >this emulation layer isn't quite finished yet though eduardo has done
> >a large amount of work to make it so, at least for sparc64 (where it
> >is essential!)
> >the idea is: there is no reason we can not run 32bit binaries on a
> >64bit kernel. it is simply a matter of programming. :-)
> so, will the emulation layer would change alignment constraints on
> all the data on routing socket? hmm, I see I'm relieved.
Yes. (or rather it should)
> back to the original question (CMSG_ALIGN), which one do you prefer?
The first one. It's simpler.
Matt Thomas Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org
3am Software Foundry WWW URL: http://www.3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA Disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message