Ian Baird wrote:
> On x86-64, you get more GPRs. From my naive benchmarking with my
> algorithms on ObjC, I get at 15%-20% speedup.
Since I had to google it -- GPR == "General Purpose Register"
OK, 15-20% is nice!
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
On x86-64, you get more GPRs. From my naive benchmarking with my
algorithms on ObjC, I get at 15%-20% speedup.
Ian
On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> semi OT:
>
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> It's to bad that they don't ship 64-bit command-line utilities as
>> well.
>
>
semi OT:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> It's to bad that they don't ship 64-bit command-line utilities as well.
What does 64-bit buy you? Is the only advantage the ability to address a
lot of memory? Any other performance advantages?
i.e. -- how much should I care?
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker
On 2 Nov, 2007, at 21:38, Martina Oefelein wrote:
Am 02.11.2007 um 08:03 schrieb Ronald Oussoren:
As you've noticed the actual framework is 64bit but the commandline
tools are not. It should be easy enough to add 64-bit command-line
tools as well, but even then you'll have to add extra ar
On 2 Nov, 2007, at 22:02, Boyd Waters wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Martina Oefelein wrote:
I think this actually makes sense: if the command line tools were
32/64 bit universal, scripts would run with the 64 bit version on 64
bit systems, and wouldn't be able to use any of the librarie
On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Martina Oefelein wrote:
> I think this actually makes sense: if the command line tools were
> 32/64 bit universal, scripts would run with the 64 bit version on 64
> bit systems, and wouldn't be able to use any of the libraries that
> are only 32 bit.
>
> The framework,
On Nov 2, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Martina Oefelein wrote:
>
> Am 02.11.2007 um 08:03 schrieb Ronald Oussoren:
>
>> As you've noticed the actual framework is 64bit but the commandline
>> tools are not. It should be easy enough to add 64-bit command-line
>> tools as well, but even then you'll have to add
Am 02.11.2007 um 08:03 schrieb Ronald Oussoren:
> As you've noticed the actual framework is 64bit but the commandline
> tools are not. It should be easy enough to add 64-bit command-line
> tools as well, but even then you'll have to add extra arguments to
> build 64-bit extensions (as Boyd
On 1 Nov, 2007, at 17:32, William Kyngesburye wrote:
(Is it OK to ask about Apple's Leopard Python 2.5?)
I'm a little confused about the 64bit-ness of Apple's Python 2.5. I
see that the framework is, but the python executable is only universal
32bit. The modules (lib/python2.5/lib-dynload) a
I just realized - if the python executables are only 32bit universal,
what's the point of having anything else in python (including the
python framework) 64bit? Is there some alternate way of using python
that would operate in 64bits?
Maybe I should wait for a non-Apple 64bit build, conside
Cool. Thanks, that's what I need.
On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Nicholas Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:32:58AM -0500, William Kyngesburye wrote:
>> (Is it OK to ask about Apple's Leopard Python 2.5?)
>>
>> I'm a little confused about the 64bit-ness of Apple's Python 2.5. I
>> see that
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:32:58AM -0500, William Kyngesburye wrote:
> (Is it OK to ask about Apple's Leopard Python 2.5?)
>
> I'm a little confused about the 64bit-ness of Apple's Python 2.5. I
> see that the framework is, but the python executable is only universal
> 32bit. The modules (li
I haven't tested this extensively, but I believe you could add a
compiler options to the setup.py command line:
python setup.py -Xcompiler -m64 -arch x86_64
Or something like that.
I have a 64-bit Leopard machine in the other room. I'll try it and see.
On Nov 1, 2007, at 10:32 AM, William
13 matches
Mail list logo
