- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Legacy
- >
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- >
- Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
1752789
Members
5710
Online
108789
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-07-2007 06:25 PM
тАО11-07-2007 06:25 PM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
Code compiled for PA-RISC 1.0 (or 1.1)
will run fine on 2.0 in and of itself.
However, you'll usually find that 1.0 or 1.1 code was compiled on an older version of
HP-UX, and HP-UX doesn't have a perfect
record of backward compatibility for
old code running on newer releases.
In other words, try running it :)
We often compile code for 1.1 on HP-UX 11i v2 and ship it to clients with 2.0 systems ... because we also have clients with 1.1 systems on 11i v2 (the 1.1 will run on both, the 2.0 won't run on 1.1 systems).
The performance difference between the 1.1 and 2.0 code is generally negligble. (And, in some cases, 1.1 32-bit is faster than 2.0 64-bit ... your mileage may vary).
Stan
sieler@allegro.com
will run fine on 2.0 in and of itself.
However, you'll usually find that 1.0 or 1.1 code was compiled on an older version of
HP-UX, and HP-UX doesn't have a perfect
record of backward compatibility for
old code running on newer releases.
In other words, try running it :)
We often compile code for 1.1 on HP-UX 11i v2 and ship it to clients with 2.0 systems ... because we also have clients with 1.1 systems on 11i v2 (the 1.1 will run on both, the 2.0 won't run on 1.1 systems).
The performance difference between the 1.1 and 2.0 code is generally negligble. (And, in some cases, 1.1 32-bit is faster than 2.0 64-bit ... your mileage may vary).
Stan
sieler@allegro.com
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-08-2007 07:22 AM
тАО11-08-2007 07:22 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
Matter of fact the stepwise procedure can be collapsed into a single pipelined command as follows:
# getconf CPU_VERSION | xargs -i echo 0d{}=x | adb | xargs -i grep 0x{} /usr/include/sys/unistd.h
...and the above will work for both PA-RISC and IPF machines.
# getconf CPU_VERSION | xargs -i echo 0d{}=x | adb | xargs -i grep 0x{} /usr/include/sys/unistd.h
...and the above will work for both PA-RISC and IPF machines.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-08-2007 07:05 PM
тАО11-08-2007 07:05 PM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
The last supported OS that would produce 1.0 code was 10.10.
Where are you getting your PA 1.0 code?
(Of course you originally said 1.1.)
>Sandman: I would say porting from PA-RISC 1.0 to PA-RISC 2.0 should not be a problem
Yes, this should be forward compatible, unless kernel intrusive.
>Stan: The performance difference between the 1.1 and 2.0 code is generally negligible.
This is not true if doing a lot of shlib calls to small functions.
Where are you getting your PA 1.0 code?
(Of course you originally said 1.1.)
>Sandman: I would say porting from PA-RISC 1.0 to PA-RISC 2.0 should not be a problem
Yes, this should be forward compatible, unless kernel intrusive.
>Stan: The performance difference between the 1.1 and 2.0 code is generally negligible.
This is not true if doing a lot of shlib calls to small functions.
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP