Ouch. I think the blame is partly on the build configuration. IMO build configurations shouldn't degrade silently this way. If the user is OK without a 32-bit vDSO then they should explicitly specify that.
o11c
It's worth noting that even on x86, -m32 isn't as complete as a real i?86 build of gcc. It's "complete enough" for the kernel and many other things, but, say, I found it very difficult to build a 32-bit program that didn't rely on SSE since the 64-bit version assumes it.
WhyNotHugo
What’s the use case for running a 32bit binary in a 64bit cpu/os? Is there any advantage? Or is it simply to avoid having to recompile twice to support two architectures?
winter_blue
I wonder how vDSO works for an x32 ABI program (ie a program with 32 bit pointers, but access to the rest of the x86-64 feature set).
andirk
Anyone able to give a TL_IDID_R (I did read) but didn't understand a damn thing?
> ensure that CROSS_COMPILE_COMPAT is directed to a 32-bit toolchain. Failure to do so might lead to performance issues.