[cgl_discussion] Buffer overflow

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:32:50 +0200 "Adriano Galano" <adriano at satec.es> wrote:

| Hi again:
| 
| > On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 08:04, Adriano Galano wrote:
| > (...)
| > > Is not better to CGL become strong for IA-64/x86-64 architectures?
| >
| > Well, we have kept CGL quite HW agnostic (there are couple borderline
| > cases, though), but this question has cropped up couple times (i.e.
| > what is CGL doing about IA-64/x86-64), and the answer so far has
| > really been "nothing, because we need not to".
| >
| 
| Some applications like Softswitch or Core routing could be bring too much
| performance using one 64bits architecture. Some Softswitch builders are
| porting the apps to IA-64 arch.
| 
| > CGL builds on top of Linux kernel,
| 
| what's mean "on top"? Is not neccesary to apply changes at the kernel level
| space?
| 
| > which at it's own seems to be doing
| > fine enough job tracking those two architectures. And there
| > have been no
| > feature proposals in CGL that would require use of 64-bit
| > architecture.
| >
| 
| Itanium architecture have extensions that amplify the Monitoring and
| Management Layer proposed at CGL.
| 
| I would like to have Linux NEBS servers on Itanium ;-)

And CGL doesn't want to do anything that would prevent you from having
that, either.
But CGL isn't focused on any one company's 32-bit or 64-bit processors.


| Regards,
| 
| -Adriano
| 
| > --MiKu

--
~Randy