And...

"There has been a change to the default kernel loaded on 64-bit capable Pis. The 64-bit (aarch64) kernel is now the default for those systems.

You can use another method to detect the software architecture (dpkg --print-architecture is one method).

Or you can force the 32-bit (armv7l or others) kernel to be used by putting arm_64bit=0 in /boot/config.txt"

> On 2023-03-31, at 10:50 AM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> 
> I see a number of people have noticed this on the Pi forums - 
> https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=349291
> 
> Looks like the latest downloadable images have been changed to use the 64bit kernel but allow a 32bit userland.
> 
> A suggestion is to use `dpkg --print-architecture`
> 
>> On 2023-03-31, at 5:48 AM, Bruce O'Neel <bruce.oneel at pckswarms.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> It's because it either uses
>> 
>> arch
>> 
>> or 
>> 
>> uname -m
>> 
>> Both of which *now* return
>> 
>> gresil:~$ uname -m
>> aarch64
>> gresil:~$ arch
>> aarch64
>> gresil:~$
>> 
>> To me this seems broken.  But that is what it does now.
>> 
>> It is a 64 bit kernel now.  But 32 bit userland.
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> bruce
>> 
>> On 2023-03-31T14:43:06.000+02:00, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Thanks a bunch.
>> seeing that, I'm slightly puzzled how configure ended up with aarch64.
>> But maybe I've some time ahead :)
>> 
>> Best regards
>> -Tobias
>> 
>> On 31. Mar 2023, at 14:08, Bruce O'Neel <bruce.oneel at pckswarms.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> HI,
>> 
>> Here you go:
>> 
>> DEB_BUILD_ARCH=armhf
>> DEB_BUILD_ARCH_ABI=eabihf
>> DEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS=32
>> DEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU=arm
>> DEB_BUILD_ARCH_ENDIAN=little
>> DEB_BUILD_ARCH_LIBC=gnu
>> DEB_BUILD_ARCH_OS=linux
>> DEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU=arm
>> DEB_BUILD_GNU_SYSTEM=linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE=arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_BUILD_MULTIARCH=arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_HOST_ARCH=armhf
>> DEB_HOST_ARCH_ABI=eabihf
>> DEB_HOST_ARCH_BITS=32
>> DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU=arm
>> DEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN=little
>> DEB_HOST_ARCH_LIBC=gnu
>> DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS=linux
>> DEB_HOST_GNU_CPU=arm
>> DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM=linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE=arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH=arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_TARGET_ARCH=armhf
>> DEB_TARGET_ARCH_ABI=eabihf
>> DEB_TARGET_ARCH_BITS=32
>> DEB_TARGET_ARCH_CPU=arm
>> DEB_TARGET_ARCH_ENDIAN=little
>> DEB_TARGET_ARCH_LIBC=gnu
>> DEB_TARGET_ARCH_OS=linux
>> DEB_TARGET_GNU_CPU=arm
>> DEB_TARGET_GNU_SYSTEM=linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_TARGET_GNU_TYPE=arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> DEB_TARGET_MULTIARCH=arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> 
>> 
>> cheers
>> bruce
>> 
>> On 2023-03-31T13:08:28.000+02:00, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hey Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> On 31. Mar 2023, at 12:03, Bruce O'Neel <bruce.oneel at pckswarms.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> That's a good idea, but let's wait just a touch. I suspect that we're not the only ones running into this.
>> 
>> The only place where we would need this is around line 18582 of 
>> 
>> opensmalltalk-vm/platforms/unix/config/configure
>> 
>> aarch64)
>> # Check whether --enable-fast-bitblt was given.
>> if test "${enable_fast_bitblt+set}" = set; then :
>> enableval=$enable_fast_bitblt; if test "x$enableval" = "xyes" ; then
>> bitblt_objs="BitBltPlugin.o BitBltArm64.o BitBltDispatch.o BitBltGeneric.o"
>> bitblt_flags="-DENABLE_FAST_BLT"
>> fi
>> 
>> fi
>> 
>> This seems to be the only place where we use the architecture and we have not overridden it.
>> 
>> Also I think we should have a bigger discussion about do we continue with 32 bit OSes and/or 32 bit builds? But I'll make that a separate email exchange.
>> 
>> 
>> since its a raspbian, can you get me the output of
>> 
>> $ dpkg-architecture
>> 
>> ? I think we could well work with that…
>> 
>> Best regards
>> -Tobias
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> bruce
>> 
>> 
>> On 2023-03-30T23:22:16.000+02:00, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Bruce,
>> 
>> maybe we should introduce a helper C file, wordsize.c or some such. It could be as simple as
>> 
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> int main() { printf("%d\n", sizeof(void *)); return 0; }
>> 
>> we would then compile that first and use its output to determine what to do next. More reliable than uname? What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:23 AM Bruce O'Neel <bruce.oneel at pckswarms.ch> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> First, this is not our problem :-). But it affects us.
>> 
>> I have kept a 32 bit Pi OS around even though the rest of my ARM systems are 64 bit.
>> 
>> Until today Squeak built fine. The last build I did was 901401c from the 28th but tonight it started failing on Pi OS 32 bit with:
>> 
>> tmp/opensmalltalk-vm/platforms/Cross/plugins/BitBltPlugin/BitBltArm64.c:261:9: error: invalid 'asm': invalid operand for code 'w'
>> 
>> which is bizarre. Why would it start building the BitBltArm64.c plugin? It's ARM32 (armv7l to be exact). 
>> 
>> And the is no way that the two commits since the last successful build could have changed this. And what do you know, that commit fails as well now.
>> 
>> But there is the problem. uname -m returned armv7l. Yesterday 
>> 
>> But today it does not return armv7l. Today uname -m and arch both return aarch64.
>> 
>> Which is technically at some level correct. This system IS a PI/400 so therefore it is an ARM64, but with a 32 bit OS installed.
>> 
>> I think the change is this package:
>> 
>> libc-bin:armhf 2.31-13+rpt2+rpi1+deb11u5
>> 
>> We'll see if Debian or Raspberry PI fixes this in the next few days.
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> bruce
>> 
> 
> 
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Try not to let implementation details sneak into design documents.
> 
> 


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Original Sin is hard to find, but the digitally enhanced version is readily available.