From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu,  2 Sep 2010 07:57:02 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <6798c4ab0106c5f2980352a84ed5ce36@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimtKtehEX9-futHHnm571-GSi1jJKOPccOShg-W@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikVuCtt-CJH5C30L_1iUw=ioDpuUaWu4-jNjH9N@mail.gmail.com>
	<4fdbe45db39b4c9d8bb6f360e12dde9c@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTi=rSw_cjMCQ3V05uczcDwnHhJD1kZfhr1R9fXBW@mail.gmail.com>
	<5f67ead6f48c116a69a892a57931d4d2@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTimtKtehEX9-futHHnm571-GSi1jJKOPccOShg-W@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] problem with building from source on vx32 solved
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4da95598-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Sep  2 02:38:12 EDT 2010, rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, the problem with _tos on 9vx is making some sense.
>
> gcc and 8c disagree on the size of the Tos struct. It's declared the
> same way in 9vx as in
> Plan 9, but 8c thinks it is 56 bytes and gcc thinks it is 88.
>
> The reason is that 9vx is compiled on a 64-bit machine in this case,
> so we are running 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit kernel, i.e. it is
> heterogeneous. Amusing :-)
>
> Guess I'll try 9vx as a 32-bit binary and see what shakes.

since 56%4==0, can't you correct the size mismatch by using
32-bit types to prevent 64-bit 9vx from doubling the size?

- erik