Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932265AbVIJHmg (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:42:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932267AbVIJHmg (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:42:36 -0400 Received: from 64-30-195-78.dsl.linkline.com ([64.30.195.78]:24960 "EHLO jg555.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932265AbVIJHmg (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:42:36 -0400 Message-ID: <43228E4E.4050103@jg555.com> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:42:06 -0700 From: Jim Gifford User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LKML Subject: Pure 64 bootloaders Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1049 Lines: 29 I have been working on a project to create a Pure 64 bit distro of linux, nothing 32 bit in the system. I can accomplish that with no issues pretty much on all platforms, with the exception of the bootloaders. It just seems odd, that all the bootloaders seem to have gcc -m32 in their makefiles. Silo on the Sparc has gcc -m32 Grub on the x86 platforms has gcc -m32 The only one that builds and works is Lilo, which most people are moving away from. So for my question, why does a bootloader have to be 32bit? Anyone got 64 bit bootloaders for Sparc or x86_64 machines? Are there technical limitations that bootloaders can't be 64 bit? If we can't have a pure64 environment, why does the Kernel support it? Thank you all for taking you time to respond. -- ---- Jim Gifford maillist@jg555.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/