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
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
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 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
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
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.
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
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
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
that Geoff's regression tester trips over are
usually these things don't have much to do with darwin.
I would be in favor of making Darwin a primary platform if such a
change would encourage Apple to make more of an effort to engage
FSF GCC development and maintenance. Can GCC get such a commitment
the priority of many of those bugs to P1 if
Darwin is a primary platform. Also, there also are a few Bugzilla bugs
assigned to Apple developers that have not seen any progress and some
features contributed by Apple don't appear to receive a lot of support.
David
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
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,
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
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
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
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. What
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
that for the 4.3 release
i386-darwin will also achieve this level of quality.
I discussed this with my management and we agreed that we would
recommend that powerpc-darwin together with i386-darwin be a primary
platform for the 4.3 release.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
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
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?
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
