Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> On 2009-Dec-29 23:57:13 +0000, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net >>> wrote: >>> Peter Jeremy wrote: >>> Yes it does. And I can understand why, since for 99% of programs, >>> there is no >>> advantage to 64-bit, but some disadvantages (larger pointers, let >>> fit in cache >>> etc). >> OTOH, programs doing multi-precision integer math should benefit from >> 64-bit arithmetic - and I would expect that at least some parts of >> Sage would benefit from this. > > Yep, 64-bit based multi-precision can be up to 4 times as fast. And > unlike most of the world, users of Sage use their computers to > actually compute.
Yes. That's my main reason for suggesting not to bother with 32-bit on Open Solaris. I'm not suggesting we force 64-bit on anyone by hard-coding -m64 everywhere. That would be the most stupid thing to do. But we simply don't waste time on problems which only occur in 32-bit mode. Currently Sage does not build on Open Solaris. Some unresolved issues are specific to 32-bit (OpenSSL being one), some unresolved issues are specific to 64-bit (numerous spkg-install files). But given a lack of resources, I believe we should concentrate building Sage in a way likely to be of benefit to most people - i.e. a 64-bit build. I'm a bit reluctant to fight with OpenSSL when a 64-bit Sage would be more useful to me. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
