On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Todd Vierling wrote:

# On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, matthew green wrote:
# : because the ultimate plan (tm) is to eventually have just /sys/arch/sparc
# : with both 32-bit & 64-bit support all in here.  also because we want it
# : that way and have been asking for it for a year or more.
# 
# This has some serious implications for the uses of MACHINE and MACHINE_ARCH.  
# Were you planning to keep those as "sparc64" for a 64-bit-native system?

#define my static

my struct advice {
    char worth:2;
    char **text;
} =
{
    0x2,
    {
	"1.  Linux sez that they do a 64-bit kernel but only do a 32-bit\n",
	"userland because they perceive that there is no real benefit to\n",
	"do a 64-bit userland.  I can't believe this to be the case, \n",
	"myself, else why have a 64-bit architecture in the first place?\n",
	"2.  That said, they should probably be somewhat separate "
	"entities\n",
	(char *) 0;
    }
};
	

# 
# 


				--*greywolf;
--
"I didn't get where I am today without using BSD."