Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 19:15:36 +0400 From: "Alexey Karagodov" <karagodov@gmail.com> To: "Mikhail Teterin" <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, stable@freebsd.org, Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: cc can't build 32-bit executables on amd64 Message-ID: <c7aff4ef0605020815o397fcb65ue6fcc81994e10c8f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200605021101.57778@aldan> References: <200605011604.26507.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20060501220414.GA74865@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <20060502095954.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200605021101.57778@aldan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
workaround i use: 32-bit jail on amd64 system ... not so bad ... 2006/5/2, Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com>: > > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 05:59, Peter Jeremy wrote: > =3D But probably not as fast since it's using a generic 'C' core instead > =3D of a hand-tweaked assembler core. I read Mikhail's comment as meaning > =3D that it is possible to build non-trivial 32-bit executables on amd64, > =3D there's just work still needed to make this work as a general case. > > Thanks, Peter. You are correct, that was my meaning. > > Interestingly, the assembler-optimized 32-bit routines made lame slower > than > the native 64-bit code in my experiments (one may wish to compare > assembler > vs. C lame on i386 too). But it all *worked*, which was the point... > > -mi > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c7aff4ef0605020815o397fcb65ue6fcc81994e10c8f>