But if the kernel determines where stuff is placed in a struct and the kernel can run both 32- and 64-bit executables, you're still fuct.
That is certainly not the case for Intel processors. Even running under 64-bit kernels; 32-bit processes only use 32-bit pointers.
Plus some weird architectures like AS/400 (relevant for AIX) use 128bit pointers even on 32bit ALUs.
I know naff all about AS/400, but since the original AS/400 hardware was 48-bit; and it has all been 64-bit for the last decade or so; one wonders whether the question is even relevant for such hardware?
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
True about the 32bit pointers, I just assumed Su^H^HOracle had changed something about the struct layout in 64bit versions. Otherwise the whole problem shouldn't exist as the change would be transparent to whatever C code retrieves the struct and passes it to Perl. In any case that's the leven the problem should be solved on.
Actually I've never written anything for AS/400 either and especially with IBM's compatibility-back-to-the-60s fetishism you're right that it shouldn't matter at all. Wonder why the OP seemed to have a similar problem there.
| [reply] |
