On 13 Aug 2012, at 20:40, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>> Poor reading skills are keeping this thread alive. No, I have not been
>> saying anything related to whatever work I may or may not have that's
>> related to 64-bit porting. What I have been r
On 2012-08-13, at 3:40 PM, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>> What I have been ranting and raving about is the fact that the 64-bit
>> porting guide currently states that you may not want to move to 64-bit.
>> That is the official advice any straggler devel
On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> Poor reading skills are keeping this thread alive. No, I have not been
> saying anything related to whatever work I may or may not have that's related
> to 64-bit porting. What I have been ranting and raving about is the fact
> that the 64-bi
On Aug 12, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Vincent Habchi wrote:
> That’s from the hardware side. Unfortunately, since most people gave up
> programming in assembly (what a loss! ;)) in favor of C, its derivatives, or
> other various high level languages, there was a need to nail down the width
> of various
Le 12 août 2012, à 04:09, koko écrivit :
> Is 64-bit the end or will there be 128-bit?
The term "64-bit" is misleading. There are several parameters that can be
quantified by a number of bits: internal width of registers, of the data and
address buses, both internal and external, of the variou
For memory addressing, 64 bit should be enough for some times.
For computation, 128 bit is already something from the past as actual Mac
processors provide 256bits register (AVX) ;-)
Le 12 août 2012 à 04:09, koko a écrit :
>
> Is 64-bit the end or will there be 128-bit?
>
>
> -koko
>
>
>
Le 12 août 2012 à 03:16, Jayson Adams a écrit :
>
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/2012, at 4:18 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>>
>>> the porting guide currently states, which is that you may not want to move
>>> to 64-bit
>>
>>
>> What's so hard about moving to 64
If developers should transition to 64-bit (as Greg says they should), then:
* The docs are outdated and misleading.
* This is bad for developers who assume the docs are up-to-date and reliable.
* Right or wrong, some developers will fall into this category.
* It behooves Apple to update the docs,
An argument on the internet is like arguing with an idiot.. Even if you win you
were arguing with an idiot.
~ Erik
___
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact t
On Aug 11, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
>
> On 12/08/2012, at 12:08 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>
>> As Greg Parker's comments are tangential to the issue I am raising, my point
>> is proven again.
>
>
> No they aren't.
>
> The fact is, that if the documentation was always up to date, a
On 12/08/2012, at 12:09 PM, koko wrote:
> Is 64-bit the end or will there be 128-bit?
64-bit should be enough for anybody oh, wait.
--Graham
___
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderato
On 12/08/2012, at 12:08 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> As Greg Parker's comments are tangential to the issue I am raising, my point
> is proven again.
No they aren't.
The fact is, that if the documentation was always up to date, always perfect,
and complete then mailing lists and forums would no
Is 64-bit the end or will there be 128-bit?
-koko
On Aug 11, 2012, at 7:25 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
>
> On 12/08/2012, at 11:16 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>
>> Poor reading skills are keeping this thread alive.
>
>
> Well, indeed. I quote Greg Parker:
>
>> We recommend that you transition you
On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
>
> On 12/08/2012, at 11:16 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>
>> Poor reading skills are keeping this thread alive.
>
>
> Well, indeed. I quote Greg Parker:
As Greg Parker's comments are tangential to the issue I am raising, my point is
proven again.
On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> If Apple is considering dropping 32-bit support they need to change this
> piece of documentation. And no, I am not going to file a bug on it.
Why the hell not?! Apple has a channel for providing feedback; why do you
refuse to use it?
We've
On 12/08/2012, at 11:16 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> Poor reading skills are keeping this thread alive.
Well, indeed. I quote Greg Parker:
> We recommend that you transition your app to 64-bit. Many of the caveats in
> the 64-Bit Transition Guide are no longer applicable.
>
>
> --
> Greg Par
On Aug 11, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
> On 12/08/2012, at 4:18 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>
>> the porting guide currently states, which is that you may not want to move
>> to 64-bit
>
>
> What's so hard about moving to 64-bit anyway? The time you've wasted ranting
> and raving about
On Aug 11, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
> On 12/08/2012, at 10:46 AM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>
>> Well, that's not necessarily true — if one's codebase is heavily dependent
>> on Carbon or any of the other various technologies that didn't make the
>> 64-bit transition, porting to 64-bit
On 12/08/2012, at 10:46 AM, Charles Srstka wrote:
> Well, that's not necessarily true — if one's codebase is heavily dependent on
> Carbon or any of the other various technologies that didn't make the 64-bit
> transition, porting to 64-bit may be quite involved. However, this even
> further u
On Aug 11, 2012, at 6:51 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
> On 12/08/2012, at 4:18 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>
>> the porting guide currently states, which is that you may not want to move
>> to 64-bit
>
>
> What's so hard about moving to 64-bit anyway? The time you've wasted ranting
> and raving about
On 12/08/2012, at 4:18 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> the porting guide currently states, which is that you may not want to move to
> 64-bit
What's so hard about moving to 64-bit anyway? The time you've wasted ranting
and raving about it, you could have had it running by now.
--Graham
On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Alex Kac wrote:
> Apple's system is a mutually beneficial one but it also requires both parties
> to do their part. Apple probably does have a bug on this already, but unless
> you file one as well – and for that matter everyone else that knows about
> this – then
Apple's system is a mutually beneficial one but it also requires both parties
to do their part. Apple probably does have a bug on this already, but unless
you file one as well – and for that matter everyone else that knows about this
– then it may not bubble up. Apple has said many times that th
On Aug 11, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>>> What it doesn't say anything about is the timing of the demise of 32-bit
>>> support.
>>
>> Of course we don't know the exact timing, but it's entirely plausible that
>> it could be removed in 10.9 or 10.10, and if you don't want to get a r
On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Gwynne Raskind wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>> I say again, Apple's official 64-bit porting document states, right now,
>> that you may or may not want to move to 64 bit. If Apple is planning on
>> removing 32-bit support in the n
File a bug on that doc then. The docs are so big that I'm sure Apple doesn't
keep track of every page that needs updating and some like this one may not be
editable easily without giving up their plans. Since Apple is well known not to
give away their plans, reading tea leaves is what a good App
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> I say again, Apple's official 64-bit porting document states, right now, that
> you may or may not want to move to 64 bit. If Apple is planning on removing
> 32-bit support in the near future, they will be partly to blame for any rude
> su
On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>> Tell me what exactly? That 32-bit is going away in 10.9? That doesn't
>> follow. That 32-bit will get dropped eventually? That was already obvious.
>
>
> It tells us that Apple is no longer putting effort into 32-bit, which in turn
> tell
Le 11 août 2012, à 05:05, Eric Wing écrivit:
> There are actually other compelling reasons to move to 64-bit that
> have nothing to do with the amount of addressable memory or max int.
> For example, i386 is register starved which has implications on
> performance. The modern CPU architectures co
On Aug 11, 2012, at 12:10 AM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>
>>> Not everyone uses ARC, or the other recent additions Apple has made to the
>>> language.
>>
>> Yes, but the fact that everything new that Apple adds assumes that you're
>> compiling fo
On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>> Not everyone uses ARC, or the other recent additions Apple has made to the
>> language.
>
> Yes, but the fact that everything new that Apple adds assumes that you're
> compiling for 64-bit only really ought to tell you something.
>>
Tell
On 11/08/2012, at 1:02 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
> Apple says a lot of things.
I'm still struggling to build for 680x0 you insensitive clod!
--Graham
___
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or mod
On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>>
>>> Except Apple itself says it might not make sense to do so. From the 64-bit
>>> Transition Guide:
>>>
>>> https://developer.apple
On 8/10/12, Jayson Adams wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>>
>>> Except Apple itself says it might not make sense to do so. From the
>>> 64-bit Transition Guide:
>>>
>>> https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#do
On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong in your general conclusion about
> the fate of 32-bit, because you don't know and I don't know either. What I
> am saying, though, is that for all of the 32-bit-the-sky-is-falling, the
> first place a
On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
>
>> Except Apple itself says it might not make sense to do so. From the 64-bit
>> Transition Guide:
>>
>> https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorti
On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>
>>> You won't get one. But between you and me, I would say it is highly
>>> unlikely, since they'd kill MS Office support if they did that, and Office
>>> is one of the two or three most imp
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 05:44 PM, Jayson Adams wrote:
> Except Apple itself says it might not make sense to do so. From the
> 64-bit Transition Guide:
>
> "Although 64-bit executables make it easier for you to manage large
> data sets (compared to memory mapping of large files in a 32-bit
On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
>> You won't get one. But between you and me, I would say it is highly
>> unlikely, since they'd kill MS Office support if they did that, and Office
>> is one of the two or three most important third-party apps on OS X.
>
> MS is, however, wor
On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:51 AM, Nick Zitzmann wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Kurt Bigler wrote:
>
>> I'd seriously wish for some statement from Apple ASAP if that were a
>> possibility that 32-bit support would be fully eliminated in 10.9.
>
> You won't get one. But between you and me, I
On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Kurt Bigler wrote:
> I'd seriously wish for some statement from Apple ASAP if that were a
> possibility that 32-bit support would be fully eliminated in 10.9.
You won't get one. But between you and me, I would say it is highly unlikely,
since they'd kill MS Office
On 8/2/12 12:29 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:57 PM, koko wrote:
Thanks.
I asked the question because I saw here one time that "you don't want to be the app
causing 32-bit versions" to load.
As long as it is not a system resource problem, then all is well as far as I am
co
On 8/2/12, koko wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> I asked the question because I saw here one time that "you don't want to be
> the app causing 32-bit versions" to load.
>
> As long as it is not a system resource problem, then all is well as far as I
> am concerned.
It depends on how much you need to pull in.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
> I'd probably recommend moving toward 64-bit now, for the sake of future
> compatibility.
Yes, I agree. We just don't want to miss 10.8 customers as we move our libs to
64-bit.
-koko
___
Cocoa-dev
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:57 PM, koko wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> I asked the question because I saw here one time that "you don't want to be
> the app causing 32-bit versions" to load.
>
> As long as it is not a system resource problem, then all is well as far as I
> am concerned.
>
> However, I will
Thanks.
I asked the question because I saw here one time that "you don't want to be the
app causing 32-bit versions" to load.
As long as it is not a system resource problem, then all is well as far as I am
concerned.
However, I will be surprised if there is not some list castigation for bein
On Aug 2, 2012, at 8:11 PM, koko wrote:
> I have a number of BSD Static Libraries that support my application. These
> are 'iffy' on 64-bit compatibility due to the effort required to get them
> there.
>
> If I build a 32-bit app to run on 10.8 does this present any
> problems/resource issu
I have a number of BSD Static Libraries that support my application. These are
'iffy' on 64-bit compatibility due to the effort required to get them there.
If I build a 32-bit app to run on 10.8 does this present any problems/resource
issues to the users machine?
-koko
_
48 matches
Mail list logo
