>
>
> Dave Rivers wrote:
>
> >That is, of course one of the issues. The i386 IEEE implementation
> >is not the same as the mainframe, particularly when two variables
> >are loaded into registers and arithmetic is applied. The result
> >will be different.So, one set of "IEEE" arithmetic on a P
Dave Rivers wrote:
>That is, of course one of the issues. The i386 IEEE implementation
>is not the same as the mainframe, particularly when two variables
>are loaded into registers and arithmetic is applied. The result
>will be different.So, one set of "IEEE" arithmetic on a PC
>can get very
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 18:54, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
> That is, of course one of the issues. The i386 IEEE implementation
> is not the same as the mainframe, particularly when two variables
> are loaded into registers and arithmetic is applied. The result
> will be different.So, one se
r the
general systems programmer.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Ulrich Weigand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux compiles
-snip
Mark Post wrote:
>The differences in
>
> > Most notably - floating point arithmetic; which don't matter
> > to many applications.
>
> This in particular will be fixed with gcc 3.3. Compile-time floating
> point arithmetic will be done exactly identical in native and cross
> compiles. (But even before 3.3, this should not be an issue
Dave Rivers wrote:
> Gcc can be configured as a cross-compiler, but the gcc compiler
> makes several assumptions that may or may-not be valid
> about its "host" environment making it what I would
> call a "mostly" cross-compiler.
If it does, this is a bug which you should report so it can get
>
> Cross compiling would have been my first recommendation, until I ran into
> differences in compilations between Linux/390 and cross compiling. Running
> Hercules reduces the effective speed of the box, but I believe it allows you
> to be more certain that what you end up with better reflects w
al Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux compiles
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 15:01, Post, Mark K wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Compiling is CPU intensive. That's simply the nature of the task. Just
>
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 15:01, Post, Mark K wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Compiling is CPU intensive. That's simply the nature of the task. Just
> about any compilation will drive your CPU to 100% for the duration of the
> compile.
Cross compile on an x86 is one option, or use things like hercules on a
PC sin
> In our case this is occurring when an App server (ATG Dynamo)
> is driving
> the JAVA compilation of JSPs.
> At the moment we are suspecting the IBM JAVA 1.3.0 SDK, and
> plan to install
> 1.3.1 to validate this theory.
If you are running 1.3.0, then you definitely need to upgrade. 1.3.1
fixed
AIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:40:13 -0500
Subject: Linux compiles
Running any compile on the SuSE 7.0 kernel 2.2.16 will drive the processor
usage to 100%. What or how can this be corrected. This linux image has 256m
of storage and a share of 100 rel. also running with 'quickdsp&#x
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux compiles
Running any compile on the SuSE 7.0 kernel 2.2.16 will drive the processor
usage to 100%. What or how can this be corrected. This linux image has 256m
of storage and a share of 100 rel. also running with 'quickdsp'. plus the
compiles run extremely slow.
Running any compile on the SuSE 7.0 kernel 2.2.16 will drive the processor
usage to 100%. What or how can this be corrected. This linux image has 256m
of storage and a share of 100 rel. also running with 'quickdsp'. plus the
compiles run extremely slow.
13 matches
Mail list logo
