Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
You sure did make a mess for library developers.
The Alpha is trivial to support.
Maybe, but AFAIR, the Alpha doesn't have a 32-bit mode
like 64-bit PowerPC processors do. IIRC, S390x and SPARC64
have the same issues... except the number of 32-bit users
on those
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Why:
Somebody thought it was a good idea for a 64-bit
system to have all the apps be 32-bit.
As one of the people that made the decision that the
majority (not all) apps be 32-bit, I can say without
hesitation that it was the right choice!
This means that a 32-bit
Peter Bergner writes:
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Why:
Somebody thought it was a good idea for a 64-bit
system to have all the apps be 32-bit.
As one of the people that made the decision that the
majority (not all) apps be 32-bit, I can say without
hesitation that it was the right choice!
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
My vote is *NO*.
Why not have the people running such systems
Just wanted to say hello to everyone. I have been following this _great_
mailing list for about 2 weeks now. You helped me get my ibook2.2 up and
running :D. Also wanted to thank Ben H for his excellent work.
Also, I think this question is very valid. At what point _do_ you draw the
line?
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
Example:
The top program could grow from 2.0 MB to 2.2+ MB.
(that's the run-time memory
On Wed, 2003-01-29 21:11, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
It seems inevitable that
Hi,
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
32 bit PowerPC Linux is not exclusive to the Mac. It is
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
32 bit PowerPC Linux is not exclusive to the Mac. It is run
on PowerPC ATX boards
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
32 bit PowerPC Linux is not
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:42:44PM +1100, Ross Vumbaca wrote:
Hi,
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on
On Jan 30 2003, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users. Is it OK to make
32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and slower to allow for running them on
IBM's 64-bit hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux on a
Mac.
IMVHO, it would make life *even*
Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
32 bit
I don't quite understand the issue.
- Original Message -
From: Albert D. Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ross Vumbaca [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Albert D. Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED];
debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: bloat tolerance
14 matches
Mail list logo
