On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Eduardo E. Horvath wrote:

: > Not really; a.out works just fine, and we don't yet have need for elf64 as
: > you proposed (there's no real architecture support for 64 bit
: > addressing--you'd need an Ultra for that, and we don't support the Ultra
: > yet).
: 
: There is the elf64 file format and the SPARC v9 ELF ABI.  As far as I can
: tell they are distinct in that you can generate a SPARC v8 ABI executable
: and encode it in the elf64 file format or generate a 64-bit SPARC v9 ABI
: executable and encode it in the elf32 format (assuming PIC code and no
: 64-bit relocations.)  I'm interested in the former at the moment.  

Ah, I got a "psst!" hint from J.T. that you're currently running on an
Ultra?  (In HyperSPARC [32 bit] processor emulation mode?) 

This is what a couple people have told me in rather involved technical
explanations:  The problem with using elf64 on sparc is that the existing
elf64 code in the kernel is for just that -- _64-bit_ ELF encoded
executables.  In order to use the elf64 code that exists, the platform must
have 64 bit support, period.

My guess is that you could, if you really wanted to put a V8 executable in
an elf64 package, just make a modified ELF32 module to look for this special
type of file.  However, I still don't understand the why:  why do you need
ELF64 for a 32 bit ABI?  (If, as rumor has it, you're trying to bootstrap a
64 bit machine, wouldn't you want the latter case you describe--V9
executables in an ELF32 package--until full kernel 64 bit support exists?) 

=====
== Todd Vierling (Personal tv@pobox.com; Business tv@lucent.com)
== So you know what, Mikey?  Go to bed.