Jack Howarth wrote:
Eric,
I had always thought 90% of the advantage of
x86_64 was the extra registers in EMT64. Actually
the only gripe I have with Apple's transient to
Intel is that they didn't junk the i386 model and
only use chips that could do EMT64 so we would always
have those extra re
Eric,
I had always thought 90% of the advantage of
x86_64 was the extra registers in EMT64. Actually
the only gripe I have with Apple's transient to
Intel is that they didn't junk the i386 model and
only use chips that could do EMT64 so we would always
have those extra registers.
Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
FWIW I think a 64-bit native version might be nice as a separate
target, but I've been told there's no real advantage there either on ppc.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but with a 64-bit gcc you can
compi
On Oct 4, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
FWIW I think a 64-bit native version might be nice as a separate
target, but I've been told there's no real advantage there either
on ppc.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but with a 64-bit gcc you
can compile machine-generate
> FWIW I think a 64-bit native version might be nice as a separate
> target, but I've been told there's no real advantage there either on
> ppc.
For PPC64-Darwin, there might be an advantage having a better ABI passing around
structs but other than that I don't think there is one unless GCC is
On Oct 4, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Sep 22, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Bradley Lucier wrote:
Right now, it seems that one may not be able to build a 64-bit
version of the compiler itself
You may or may not have noticed that there are no 64-bit native
ta
On Sep 22, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Bradley Lucier wrote:
Right now, it seems that one may not be able to build a 64-bit
version of the compiler itself
You may or may not have noticed that there are no 64-bit native
targets for darwin.
I just looked at
http://gcc.gnu.o
>
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bugzilla currently shows 64 open bugs with a darwin listed as the
> > target; another 5 Altivec bugs. I am concerned about the effect on
> > releases from increasing the priority of many of those bugs to P1 if
> > Darwin is a primary platf
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bugzilla currently shows 64 open bugs with a darwin listed as the
> target; another 5 Altivec bugs. I am concerned about the effect on
> releases from increasing the priority of many of those bugs to P1 if
> Darwin is a primary platform.
Which o
David,
I should probably point out that a lot of those
bug reports are mine and refer to the test failures
in the Darwin PPC at -m64. These are all recent bug
reports of which a quite a few may actually be issues
with cctools. So I wouldn't really use those a metric
A more valid concern may b
> Mike Stump writes:
Mike> On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:09 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> maintenance of Darwin in the FSF repository has been very
>> inconsistent.
Mike> Just to be concrete, could you give an example or two of the worst
Mike> types of problems that existed in the past? My recoll
On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:09 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
maintenance of Darwin in the FSF repository has been very
inconsistent.
Just to be concrete, could you give an example or two of the worst
types of problems that existed in the past? My recollection is that
most of the things that Geoff's
Daniel Berlin wrote:
I really object to darwin being a primary platform until it is
actually possible to build it on a released darwin system without
passing extra configure flags, etc.
It seems every couple weeks something new is broken in the configure
so that you have to add another flag.
Re
On 10/1/06, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Without such a commitment and follow-through, I am not sure
whether the potential reward of greater involvement from Apple is worth
the risk of unfixed problems dragging down GCC releases.
While I sympathize with your position, consi
I am conflicted about making Darwin a primary platform. A primary
platform is not a hammer with which to make other developers fix problems
important to Darwin. Darwin definitely is popular and widely used.
However, maintenance of Darwin in the FSF repository has been very
inconsistent.
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really object to darwin being a primary platform until it is
> actually possible to build it on a released darwin system without
> passing extra configure flags, etc.
The regression tester routinely builds Darwin and uses no special
configure flags.
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 18:25 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I really object to darwin being a primary platform until it is
> actually possible to build it on a released darwin system without
> passing extra configure flags, etc.
In fact I object even ppc-darwin being a secondary target because right
I really object to darwin being a primary platform until it is
actually possible to build it on a released darwin system without
passing extra configure flags, etc.
It seems every couple weeks something new is broken in the configure
so that you have to add another flag.
Really, on our primary p
Bradley Lucier wrote:
Right now, it seems that one may not be able to build a 64-bit version
of the compiler itself, on either either x86-64 or ppc64, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28994
I notice that because some of my (automatically generated) C programs,
with certain comp
Right now, it seems that one may not be able to build a 64-bit
version of the compiler itself, on either either x86-64 or ppc64, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28994
I notice that because some of my (automatically generated) C
programs, with certain compiler options, require
On 22/09/2006, at 1:54 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Geoff,
How would the powerpc-darwin -m64 support and x86_64 fit into this
scheme? Would they be considered variants of the powerpc-darwin and
i386-darwin architectures and thus primary platforms as well? Or
would they be secondary platforms? Wi
Geoff,
How would the powerpc-darwin -m64 support and x86_64 fit into this
scheme? Would they be considered variants of the powerpc-darwin and
i386-darwin architectures and thus primary platforms as well? Or
would they be secondary platforms? With Apple's 64-bit commitment
in Leopard, they shoul
22 matches
Mail list logo
