Re: [PATCH] Magic block for modules

> > it's considered the linker's job to prevent loading 32-bit
> code into a
> > 64-bit executable or vice versa, so I don't think we need to be
> > checking for common assumptions about sizeof(long).
>
> I know ELF headers contain some of this info, and unix in
> general doesn't try to allow different bit sizes in one
> binary. Windows used to (maybe still has) a mechanism to
> allow 32-bit code to call 16-bit libraries. Do they allow the
> same for 64-bit libs?

Yes, but it's not something that it does automatically - you have to
specifically seti t up to call the thunking code. It's not something I
think we need to support at all. (Performance is also quite horrible -
at least on 16 vs 32, I'd assume the same for 32 vs 64)

//Magnus