Re: Pure 64 bootloaders

["David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Joe Bob Spamtest <joebob@spamtest.viacore.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:02:03 -0700

> David S. Miller wrote:
> >>agreed -- as far as i'm concerned the 32 bit libraries are there for 
> >>compatibility's sake and should be in /lib/compat/<subarch> instead of 
> >>/lib. the native libraries should be in /lib instead of /lib64. lib64 
> >>should just go away!
> > 
> > 64-bit isn't any more "native" than 32-bit on some 64-bit platforms.
> > 32-bit is the default and most desirable userland binary format on
> > sparc64 for example.  So 32-bit programs on sparc64 are as "native" as
> > 64-bit ones might be considered.
> 
> that's true, i had forgotten about the sparc64 case. it really does slow 
> down tremendously when used in pure 64 bit mode

PPC64 is the same, as well as a few others are likely to
be in this boat as well.  The only known exception where
64-bit is a true win is x86_64.

> i would imagine this not to be the case for most architectures though. 
> possibly hppa is the same way. anyone with mips64 and ppc64 hardware out 
> there have any input?

See above.