On 5/6/2010 1:39 PM, Eskandar Ensafi wrote:
Hi all,
To clarify, my concern was not that a 32-bit CMake would not be able to
build a 64-bit application, nor was I worried about the performance.
Rather, considering that it is possible to build a 64-bit CMake, why is it
that the CMake website does
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> See RogueResearch6 and Chameleon00.NFSNet.
> Both of these machines are reporting errors for some time.
This should fix the Architecture test:
http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=4d653fb4
It was actually passing but the regex to know that was not
mat
To: cmake@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [CMake] No Native 64-Bit CMake Binaries?
On 5/6/2010 4:25 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
>
>> What strikes me as being very strange is that CMake binaries are only
>> provided as 32-bit executables for Windows and Linux, two of the most
>> popular pla
My understanding of dashmacmini4 is that it isn't 64bit. If I download a
64bit app onto it, it will show a cross symbol through the app icon and
display errors that this architecture is not supported if you attempt to run
it. It was originally a Leopard machine that was upgraded. I think when you
d
But they are not failing on dashmacmini4.kitware.
My point is that we need to be using and testing as many viable configurations
as possible BEFORE "older" configurations become obsolete. IMHO, encouraging
the widest possible adoption of the "newer" configurations helps in this effort.
Even wit
On Thu, 6 May 2010 11:45:21 -0500, Richard Wackerbarth said:
>See RogueResearch6 and Chameleon00.NFSNet.
>Both of these machines are reporting errors for some time.
The failing 'Architecture' test on Rogue6 fails on _both_ 32 and 64 bit
though.
--
___
See RogueResearch6 and Chameleon00.NFSNet.
Both of these machines are reporting errors for some time.
Richard
On May 6, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Sean McBride wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 08:36:41 -0500, Richard Wackerbarth said:
>
>> Yes, it works for now. However, the 64-bit version for MacOSX 10.6
On Thu, 06 May 2010 09:49:37 -0400, Bill Hoffman
wrote:
> I still don't see the desire for 64 bit when 32 bit works... :)
The 32-bit version either needs to be statically linked, or requires
compatibility libraries. Google Earth and Skype is currently the only
things on my Linux machine that r
On Thu, 6 May 2010 08:17:53 -0400, Bill Hoffman said:
>It is not a resource issue. I just don't see the need? What good is a
>64 bit CMake? On Apple someone wanted to a 64 bit CMake, and I had
>them do bench marks, and not noticeable difference could be discerned
>between them.
That was m
On 5/6/2010 9:36 AM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Yes, it works for now. However, the 64-bit version for MacOSX 10.6 is
currently "broken" (at least to the extent that some of the tests
don't "work out of the box" without specific configuration). I think
that it is important that the community have
Yes, it works for now. However, the 64-bit version for MacOSX 10.6 is currently
"broken" (at least to the extent that some of the tests don't "work out of the
box" without specific configuration). I think that it is important that the
community have as much experience as possible with the "new"
On 5/6/2010 9:13 AM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Bill,
As for the need of 64-bit binaries, I agree that it is not a
performance issue.
However, it will be a compatibility issue. Things evolve. Remember
MacOSX 10.0, 10.1? Back then, you could have argued that we didn't need
a new version of CMa
Bill,
As for the need of 64-bit binaries, I agree that it is not a performance issue.
However, it will be a compatibility issue. Things evolve. Remember MacOSX 10.0,
10.1? Back then, you could have argued that we didn't need a new version of
CMake. The binaries from MacOS 9 ran just fine. Now, n
On 5/6/2010 4:25 AM, Eric Noulard wrote:
What strikes me as being very strange is that CMake binaries are only
provided as 32-bit executables for Windows and Linux, two of the most
popular platforms where CMake is ever-increasingly used on 64-bit hardware.
Is there any good reason why 64-bit b
2010/5/5 Eskandar Ensafi :
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I used to build my own CMake binaries under Linux and Windows, but I got
> tired of having to install compatible versions of third-party libraries such
> as Qt, so I’ve been downloading the prebuilt binaries instead. On the Linux
> side, I gave up on Red
On 5/5/10 3:41 PM, Eskandar Ensafi wrote:
Hello,
I used to build my own CMake binaries under Linux and Windows, but I
got tired of having to install compatible versions of third-party
libraries such as Qt, so I've been downloading the prebuilt binaries
instead. On the Linux side, I gave up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Eskandar Ensafi wrote:
> Is there any good reason why 64-bit binaries are not provided for all
> supported operating systems?
>
Is "constrained resources" a "good reason"...?
:-)
___
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit o
Hello,
I used to build my own CMake binaries under Linux and Windows, but I got
tired of having to install compatible versions of third-party libraries
such as Qt, so I've been downloading the prebuilt binaries instead. On
the Linux side, I gave up on Red Hat/EPEL and RPMforge distributions, a
18 matches
Mail list logo
