Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Both the original SPARC 64 bit port and the amd64 bit port
were started with gcc. Solaris 10's x64 binaries are
I thought that in 1996, there was no 64 bit sparc support in GCC.
maybe not in the publically available GCC but S
Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both the original SPARC 64 bit port and the amd64 bit port
> were started with gcc. Solaris 10's x64 binaries are
I thought that in 1996, there was no 64 bit sparc support in GCC.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
>>Perhaps engineering resources that went into making OpenSolaris
>>GCC-friendly would have been better spent porting SS10 to other
>>platforms? Were I the manager that had the power to decide, I would
>>have certainly pushed in that direction, not the other way around.
>>
>>
I heavily doubt,
And ON's gcc-shadow compilation does indeed uncover potential bugs, that
might not have been detected otherwise.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Martin Bochnig wrote:
>Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>
>>We also now have a fantastic system for building the source with
>>multiple compliers. Using multiple different compliers is a great way
>>to find "interesting" bugs in the compiler and in the code you are
>>building.
>>
>>Also the Studio comp
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps engineering resources that went into making OpenSolaris
>>> GCC-friendly would have been better spent porting SS10 to other
>>> platforms? Were I the manager that had the power to decide, I would
>>> have certainly pushed in that dire
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps engineering resources that went into making OpenSolaris
GCC-friendly would have been better spent porting SS10 to other
platforms? Were I the manager that had the power to decide, I would
have certainly pushed in that direction, not the other way around.
The rea
> Sparc, and x86 are no-brainers. Other platforms???
>
> Why would Sun be so keen to pay people to port
> Solaris (which has a price tag = FREE) and help HP,
> IBM etc to sell their hardware? It would end up being
> Sun paying to port the code. HP and IBM selling the
> hardware, and HP and IBM get
george r smith wrote:
My question is why isn't Sun keen in porting Eclipse to Solaris 10 (x86) and
help those of us who bought Sun boxes. I know about Netbeans but do a search
it is not used nearly as much as Ecliplse.
Maybe because Eclipse isn't "pure java" (trademark or not), so the
guards
UNIX admin wrote:
Perhaps engineering resources that went into making
OpenSolaris GCC-friendly would have been better spent
porting SS10 to other platforms? Were I the manager
that had the power to decide, I would have certainly
pushed in that direction, not the other way around.
Both the ori
>
> Why would Sun be so keen to pay people to port Solaris (which has a price
> tag = FREE) and help HP, IBM etc to sell their hardware? It would end up
> being Sun paying to port the code. HP and IBM selling the hardware, and HP
> and IBM getting support contracts for maintaining Solaris on HP a
> > Perhaps engineering resources that went into making
> OpenSolaris GCC-friendly would have been better spent
> porting SS10 to other platforms? Were I the manager
> that had the power to decide, I would have certainly
> pushed in that direction, not the other way around.
Sparc, and x86 are no-b
>Perhaps engineering resources that went into making OpenSolaris
>GCC-friendly would have been better spent porting SS10 to other
>platforms? Were I the manager that had the power to decide, I would
>have certainly pushed in that direction, not the other way around.
The reasons those engineering
> This sort of polarizing remark isn't exactly useful.
> Gcc often
> enerates good code, sometimes better that the Studio
> compilers,
> sometimes worse. On SPARC its track record is more
> mixed, but
> that's really more of a code generation issue. There
> are many
> very useful features in gcc
14 matches
Mail list logo
