Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

This discussion went off-topic quite some time ago. Please let this die. cgf On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 08:51:22PM -0400, Tim Prince wrote: >On 05/26/2012 07:40 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: >> >> >> Every time you fetch a word or instruction that is not 8-byte >> aligned, >> you force a fatal (but c

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

Tim Prince wrote: CPUs have been adding microcode continually for better optimization of the gcc -m32 string moves, even though new CPUs are designed primarily for 64-bit OS. - It's not the OS, machine and the width of the data path. If you are operating in 32 bit mode, you are u

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/27/2012 3:30 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: It Could be if it is done in a way that removes all the 32-bit speed probs (alignment issues being only 1), but ALOT of what computers do is move data around -- large amounts -- strings, buffers, etc. 64-bit archs can move a native 8-bytes/cycle, 32

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

Daniel Colascione wrote: On 5/26/12 4:40 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: Compiling for 64-bit is about memory alignment and native instruction set/word size execution. The alignment will likely cause runtime memory usage to grow somewhat, but it shouldn't be significant in most case So the x32 AB

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 05/26/2012 07:40 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: Every time you fetch a word or instruction that is not 8-byte aligned, you force a fatal (but caught by the processor and/or OS) signal for unaligned data. That forces execution out of the pipeline (though not likely out of cache, sadly, due to

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/26/12 4:40 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > > Compiling for 64-bit is about memory alignment and native instruction > set/word size execution. The alignment will likely cause runtime > memory usage > to grow somewhat, but it shouldn't be significant in most case So the x32 ABI [1] should be bet

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: "Andrew DeFaria" wrote in message news:... On 5/21/2012 1:48 PM, Warren Young wrote: On 5/21/2012 11:34 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Consider a 32-bit executable that is 4 GB in size. Do you know of one 32-bit executable that is 4 GB in size? Just one? OK, how ab

Re: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:15:24PM -0700, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: >> From: Cygwin-L: On Behalf >> Of marco atzeri >> >> Until we work and deploy a 64bit cygwin1.dll the idea to build any 64 bit >> cygwin program is pure academic and not very useful. >> >> If you want to propose patches for 6

RE: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

> From: Cygwin-L: On Behalf > Of marco atzeri > > Until we work and deploy a 64bit cygwin1.dll the idea to build any 64 bit > cygwin program is pure academic and not very useful. > > If you want to propose patches for 64 bit cygwin cygwin-developers is the > right mailing list. Sorry if I wasn't

Re: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

On 5/22/2012 9:06 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: From: Cygwin-L On Behalf Of Warren Young I would say that the vast majority of the packages in the Cygwin distribution could not reasonably make use of 64-bit data spaces. However, one of your arguments in this thread cuts both ways: the fact t

Re: 64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

On 22/05/2012 20:06, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: >> From: Cygwin-L On Behalf Of Warren Young >> I would say that the vast majority of the packages in the Cygwin >> distribution could not reasonably make use of 64-bit data spaces. >> >> However, one of your arguments in this thread cuts both ways:

64-bit Cygwin packages (was RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012)

> From: Cygwin-L On Behalf Of Warren Young > > I would say that the vast majority of the packages in the Cygwin > distribution could not reasonably make use of 64-bit data spaces. > > However, one of your arguments in this thread cuts both ways: the fact > that there are a few packages that reaso

RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

What is a better way I can give context (and credit) when I am responding to a message, without implying that I expect a reply from the original author? I've been a Usenet user since 1988, and I've never heard of the convention of "quoting implies request for reply". Replies from the original aut

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 4:03 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: Ah, I didn't realize some people interpret quoting a post as expecting a response from the author of the post. When I quote from someone else's post, I do it for the purpose of giving the context of my response. I'm not necessarily expecting

RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

Ah, I didn't realize some people interpret quoting a post as expecting a response from the author of the post. When I quote from someone else's post, I do it for the purpose of giving the context of my response. I'm not necessarily expecting a response from the author of the previous post. -- P

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 3:43 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote: On 5/21/2012 3:15 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: I don't think Warren's note said there was a 4GB 32-bit executable. I think it said a 4GB 32-bit executable would be the worst case scenario for 64-bit executable size bloat. It might be. What I was

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 3:15 PM, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: I don't think Warren's note said there was a 4GB 32-bit executable. I think it said a 4GB 32-bit executable would be the worst case scenario for 64-bit executable size bloat. It might be. What I was saying was if it doesn't exist (and probably

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

"Andrew DeFaria" wrote in message news:... > On 5/21/2012 1:48 PM, Warren Young wrote: > > On 5/21/2012 11:34 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > > > > > > Consider a 32-bit executable that is 4 GB in size. > Do you know of one 32-bit executable that is 4 GB in size? Just one? OK, > how about 3 GB? No.

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 1:48 PM, Warren Young wrote: On 5/21/2012 11:34 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote: IMHO it's the thinking of "Well hell we have tons of memory/disk/whatever. Why don't we waste it?" I assure you, the move to 64-bit executables is not the reason Chrome and your 3 JVMs are running you out o

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 11:34 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote: IMHO it's the thinking of "Well hell we have tons of memory/disk/whatever. Why don't we waste it?" I assure you, the move to 64-bit executables is not the reason Chrome and your 3 JVMs are running you out of RAM. Consider a 32-bit executable that

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 10:36 AM, James Johnston wrote: Hey, why isn't "ls" a 16-bit program? That's a real good question! Meantime have you seen that I posted this: "Anyway I think I'm done with this topic"? That is all. -- Andrew DeFaria The box said to install Windows XP/Vista o

RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

> On 5/18/2012 4:37 PM, JonY wrote: > >> OK, OK. Tack on "for most applications" to my statement (I thought it > >> was assumed). > > I believe the same was said when transitioning from 16bit to 32bit. > If so then they were wrong. Hey, why isn't "ls" a 16-bit program? Realistically, it does not

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 10:18 AM, James Johnston wrote: And there is not a single user who will notice or care that the second example has a larger 64-bit image by a few hundred KB larger. 64-bit Intel architecture instructions aren't necessarily twice the width as 32-bit architecture instructions. I'm n

RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

> How can 1000 machine instructions of 32 bit be larger than 1000 machine > instructions twice that size! Unless vastly different code generation happens > with 64 bit compilers the number of instructions emitted should be just > about the same yet with 64 bit instructions are obviously twice as bi

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/19/2012 11:25, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > On 05/18/2012 07:39 PM, JonY wrote: >>> I was under the impression that the instruction size matches the natural >>> word size of the machine. Therefore they would be 64 bit instructions. >> No, we are talking about x86, not MIPS/ARM type RISC. > Really?

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 05/18/2012 07:39 PM, JonY wrote: I was under the impression that the instruction size matches the natural word size of the machine. Therefore they would be 64 bit instructions. No, we are talking about x86, not MIPS/ARM type RISC. Really? OK - Show me! Because the first mention of even CISC w

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/19/2012 09:15, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > On 5/18/2012 4:37 PM, JonY wrote: >>> OK, OK. Tack on "for most applications" to my statement (I thought it >>> was assumed). >> I believe the same was said when transitioning from 16bit to 32bit. > If so then they were wrong. >> Those are just pointers,

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/18/2012 4:37 PM, JonY wrote: OK, OK. Tack on "for most applications" to my statement (I thought it was assumed). I believe the same was said when transitioning from 16bit to 32bit. If so then they were wrong. Those are just pointers, instructions do not necessary double in size, I was und

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/19/2012 06:45, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > On 5/18/2012 10:58 AM, James Johnston wrote: >>> 64-bit does not make things go any faster than 32-bit. >> Not true for some applications. For one of our applications that uses >> very large in-memory trees and is therefore heavy on the recursion, >> sim

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/18/2012 10:58 AM, James Johnston wrote: 64-bit does not make things go any faster than 32-bit. Not true for some applications. For one of our applications that uses very large in-memory trees and is therefore heavy on the recursion, simply switching the compiler to 64-bit provided a 10%

RE: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

> 64-bit does not make things go any faster than 32-bit. Not true for some applications. For one of our applications that uses very large in-memory trees and is therefore heavy on the recursion, simply switching the compiler to 64-bit provided a 10% performance boost. Other commonly used comp

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 05/18/2012 07:46 AM, Cary Conover wrote: Was wondering with major changes to the base distro of Windows Server 8/2012 is anyone running compatibility tests on the platform and if so what observed results were? Will or Does Cygwin run on Windows Server 8/2012? I have seen some comments about d

Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

Was wondering with major changes to the base distro of Windows Server 8/2012 is anyone running compatibility tests on the platform and if so what observed results were? Will or Does Cygwin run on Windows Server 8/2012?  I have seen some comments about difficulties with Cygwin on Windows 8 desktop b